I've been using a pair of Leica M6 bodies with 35mm and 50mm lenses for a
while now. Haven't touched my OM-4T bodies in months.
I know the popular notion is that RF cameras are great for wideangles, but I
agree with Dawid that they're not. Leicas have built in finders set up for
28mm or 35mm as the widest focal length (depending on the model you have and
what finder options you got), so you need accessory finders for wider
lenses. This is a pain because you have to look through the normal finder to
focus using the rangefinder, then switch to the accessory finder to compose
the photo. For wider lenses, I think an SLR is best and as Dawid said, the
2-series focusing screens in an OM-4T or 3T are incredible.
I actually think that 50mm is the ultimate rangefinder lens. The framelines
float in the middle of a large finder allowing you to easily see what's
going on outside the frame, and the projected framelines make it easier for
me to line up horizontal and vertical lines in buildings to allow me to hold
the camera level, something I have a hard time with sometimes with SLRs.
The REAL difference between the OM-4T/3T system and the Leica though is
shutter release lag. The mirror in the OM-4/4T/3/3T/2sp bodies is
excruciatingly slow moving. I find it near impossible to capture fleeting
candid moments with my OM bodies, and have missed literally thousands of
shots because of it. The Leica fires INSTANTLY and it has improved my
street/candid type photography a million times. Other SLRs are not as bad as
the Oms; I have an old Nikon F4 and its near as fast as a Leica, maybe as
fast. I have no trouble shooting street with it, but the damned thing is
HUGE and HEAVY. The Leicas are huge and heavy enough compared to the OMs,
I'm not willing to carry anything bigger. The Shutter lag issue is really
the main thing keeping me using my Leicas over my OM-4T bodies now. Its
revolutionized my work in a way I never guessed possible, and I normally
don't think gear matters that much. The rangefinder has a lot of
limitsations. It sucks for wides as Dawid said and it sucks for long lenses.
I really think my Leicas work best for 50mm and good/ok for 35mm but that's
it. Within that limitation, they can deliver fast action shots better than
anything.
--
Chris Crawford
Fine Art Photography
Fort Wayne, Indiana
260-424-0897
http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com My portfolio
http://blog.chriscrawfordphoto.com My latest work!
On 7/9/10 1:58 PM, "Dawid Loubser" <dawidl@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 09 Jul 2010, at 7:37 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>
>>> For a while there, I really though life couldn't get better than an
>>> OM-1
>>> for my needs (an all-manual camera) but boy was I wrong. And it's
>>> actually got nothing to do with the multi-spot metering.
>>
>> 1/2000, right?
>
> 1/2000s is great, yes. But oh my, that viewfinder... There are many
> subtle differences between the design of the OM-1/2 viewfinder and
> the OM-3/4. OM-1/2 is bigger, yes. But oh my, the 3Ti/4Ti has the most
> gorgeous, accurate-focusing, flare-free, bright, crisp viewfinder
> ever made by man.
>
> And yes, I have looked through a Leica R8/R9 viewfinder before.
> A 3Ti/4Ti with 2-series screen offers a viewfinder experience which
> is superior in every way for composition and focusing to any other
> camera, including rangefinder cameras. It's simply... amazing.
>
> I find it funny how one is supposed to be "more accurate" /
> "quicker focusing" with wide angles and a rangefinder, but
> my 21mm F2 with this viewfinder is simply apparently as bright
> as what the subject seems with the naked eye. It's completely
> unbelievable. And the "feel" one develops for the focusing through
> the ultra-high-resolution focusing screen simply opens possibilities
> not possible with any rangefinder.
>
> I know I seem very Anti-rangefinder, but I was seriously, seriously
> considering an M-series rangefinder with a fast 24mm or 21mm as my
> "definitive" 35mm film camera. I tried some out. Verdict: There is
> simply no comparison, a 3Ti is superior in every respect except for
> greater noise and viewfinder blackout. Those are, simply put, the only
> reasons to use a rangefinder in my opinion.
>
> The Olympus Wides, especially the 21mm F2, are smaller, more versatile,
> vignette less, and 95% optically as good as the Leica M lenses. For
> hand-held photography, you will never see a technical difference.
>
> The 3Ti has imparted a kind of "ultimate pleasure" in terms of the
> OM system to me. I am re-discovering the wonder of the lenses as I
> can now, for the first time, truly "see" the excellence and the
> character of the lenses through this wonderful viewfinder.
>
>
>> With auto-exposure, life is a lot simpler and easier. But how a manual
>> camera affects me directly is I am constantly monitoring the light and
>> seeing what it is doing. This greater awareness of light is
>> translating into better pictures because I end up seeing things I
>> normaly don't see. Let me try to explain:
>>
>> 1. Photographer with auto-everything camera sees subject. Photographer
>> with auto-everything camera photographs subject.
>>
>> 2. Photographer with manual camera sees subject. Photographer with
>> manual camera sees light. Photographer with manual camera uses light
>> as part of the composition which usually requires relocation and/or
>> exposure modification. Photographer photographs subject with improved
>> light.
>
>
> 3. Photographer learns that if he uses an incident light meter all the
> time,
> he gets 100x better at "reading the light" (and ultimately no longer
> needing a light meter for 95% of situations) than what any in-camera
> meter
> will teach him :-)
>
> all the best, Ken -
>
> Dawid
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|