The M6 has landed!

Digital Photography has still not managed to live up to the quality and the
proliferation of traditional photography (though that is slowly changing).
I've always been a photo buff, so back when digital cameras were taking an
abysmal 640x480 I was using my Nikon F5 and the difference was like night
and day.

Remembering that the M6 is a manual, rangefinder 35mm, the camera lacks all
of the goodies that come with most SLRs today. No autofocus, no
autowinding - nearly everything you do is done manually. Once you get past
all this, the real beauty of the camera is the quality of its pictures. In
the end, if you judge this camera solely on the quality of its pictures,
then I believe it does live up to the hype. Pictures are extremely clear and
sharp, and the manual focusing/aperture setting gives you plenty of
flexibility to take the kind of pictures you want. I burned through several
rolls of film just trying to get a firm grasp of the controls. In the end,
with enough practice and patience, the results are amazing.

As the crème de la crème of 35mm cameras, the Leica M6 holds a mystic and a
prestige all of its own. Among photography aficionados, the camera is so
highly regarded that it still commands a substantial premium.

http://www.thevooner.com/feature/200...eica/leica.htm

"Filmolio" wrote in message
...
"Roxy d'Urban" wrote:

I received it all this morning and have spent the better part of the day
fiddling and faffing with it. It's beautiful. Simply beautiful. I also
received about ten copies of the Leica quarterly magazine - only problem
is they are all in French! My French is merde!

Why do you think anyone cares, Dallas?

Also... do you realise that your phony email address is a forgery if you
do
not have permission from the home.com domain owner?

"Aaron Blacksmith" wrote:
Remembering that the M6 is a manual, rangefinder 35mm, the camera lacks all
of the goodies that come with most SLRs today. No autofocus, no
autowinding - nearly everything you do is done manually. Once you get past
all this, the real beauty of the camera is the quality of its pictures. In
the end, if you judge this camera solely on the quality of its pictures,
then I believe it does live up to the hype. Pictures are extremely clear and
sharp, and the manual focusing/aperture setting gives you plenty of
flexibility to take the kind of pictures you want. I burned through several
rolls of film just trying to get a firm grasp of the controls. In the end,
with enough practice and patience, the results are amazing.


It is not the camera that makes the pictures, it is the lens. As
Leica cameras can be fitted with a variety of M bayonet and L39 screw
mount lenses, the results depend on which lens is fitted. Some older
Leica lenses are less than stellar performers.

If the results are "amazing", then the reason is more likely the
choice of lens than the choice of camera, because identical results
can be obtained with other rangefinder cameras that accept the same M
bayonet and L39 screw mount lenses.

[No doubt someone will also make the obvious point that amazing
photographers are usually the ones who create amazing results,
almost regardless of the equipment used.]

It is not the camera that makes the pictures, it is the lens. As
Leica cameras can be fitted with a variety of M bayonet and L39 screw
mount lenses, the results depend on which lens is fitted. Some older
Leica lenses are less than stellar performers.

Of course you don't put a crap lens on an M-Leica, and even the old screw
lenses perform better than comparable lenses from the same time period.

And what would beat the M-Summicron 50/2.0?



If the results are "amazing", then the reason is more likely the
choice of lens than the choice of camera, because identical results
can be obtained with other rangefinder cameras that accept the same M
bayonet and L39 screw mount lenses.

No way. Of course you take better pictures with a beautiful camera like the
M-4 or M-6 than with an ugly camera (like almost anything else, compared to
the M-leicas.



[No doubt someone will also make the obvious point that amazing
photographers are usually the ones who create amazing results,
almost regardless of the equipment used.]

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Aaron Blacksmith wrote:
It is not the camera that makes the pictures, it is the lens. As
Leica cameras can be fitted with a variety of M bayonet and L39 screw
mount lenses, the results depend on which lens is fitted. Some older
Leica lenses are less than stellar performers.

Of course you don't put a crap lens on an M-Leica, and even the old screw
lenses perform better than comparable lenses from the same time period.

And what would beat the M-Summicron 50/2.0?


Except for the case where the curvature of the flim plate matches that
of the summicron, any modern 50mm canon/nikon/whoever lens set to f/4.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

For fear of sounding "old-fashion," I agree with many, many photographer
(ones who SHOOT photos) that the Leica lenses are indeed, special. I am,
mind you, not saying sharper, but f4, to me, is not a particularly
evocative stop. As well, the printed output from Leitz glass seems to just
"look better." All very subjective, but if others did not agree, Leica and
it's "antiquated style" would have died off many years ago. If you simply
look at resale value for a 1950s Leica M2 vrs. any other camera from that
era, you will see that it holds up quite well. I'll keep my Leicas, my
Hasselblad with it's oh-so-awful Zeiss lenses AND my Nikon digitals, thanks.
Different tools for different work.

D.

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Aaron Blacksmith wrote:
It is not the camera that makes the pictures, it is the lens. As
Leica cameras can be fitted with a variety of M bayonet and L39 screw
mount lenses, the results depend on which lens is fitted. Some older
Leica lenses are less than stellar performers.

Of course you don't put a crap lens on an M-Leica, and even the old screw
lenses perform better than comparable lenses from the same time period.

And what would beat the M-Summicron 50/2.0?


Except for the case where the curvature of the flim plate matches that
of the summicron, any modern 50mm canon/nikon/whoever lens set to f/4.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In article ,
Filmolio wrote:
"Roxy d'Urban" wrote:

I received it all this morning and have spent the better part of the day
fiddling and faffing with it. It's beautiful. Simply beautiful. I also
received about ten copies of the Leica quarterly magazine - only problem
is they are all in French! My French is merde!

Why do you think anyone cares, Dallas?

Also... do you realise that your phony email address is a forgery if you do
not have permission from the home.com domain owner?

Not to mention the fact that this posting is off-topic in two of
the three newsgroups to which it was posted:

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
rec.photo.digital

The M6 is not a digital camera.

And even more, it is not a digital SLR

All ignoring the fact that it is a wonderful camera as 35mm film
rangefinders count.

I've set followups to the one of the three newsgroups in which
this is still on topic.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---