Hello M friends here,

I am wondering why is 35/1.4 at wide open only good for close distance? Shouldn't it be the contrary as the depth of field is so shallow at 1.4 and the focusing system in M is kind of limiting. Hope friends here can share some experience here.

Cheers.

BenYC hing,

It is rather difficult to explain. In theory, it shouldn't be. Actually if the performance at wide open is unacceptable with major abberations such as low contrast, softening of images with vignetting and flare...etc., then it won't give any good result no matter taking shots of close distance or at infinity. However, sometimes when shooting under unfavourable condition where the weakness of the lens is not emphasised, we might consider its performance as acceptable. Since everyone with photographic knowledge knows that the depth of field is shallow at f1.4, especially at close distance shots, it could be as small as only few inches or even less, thus hiding up some of the lens abberation affecting the shot. It fools the viewer that the effect is caused by the environment or physical property rather than lens abberations. IMHO only.

BTW the focusing system in M has nothing to do with the depth of field. May be i misunderstood what you meant.

Hi SWC hing,

Thanks for your comment. I am a M user but as much as I like my camera, I do hate it for a few things. One of them being so hard to focus near object with big aperture len wide open. This is especially impossible if the focusing object is off center.

Thus, I usually do just the opposite when shooting near object - I will step down and take advantage of the smooth shuttle to hand held longer. From my experience, a 50mm len can held held at 1/8 and get stable image with ease.

For long distance stuff... I will go wide open if I feel like.

Am I the only one doing this? Curious.
(You know M6 is more like a cult camera....)

Cheers.
Ben

P.S. I still don't understand why film loading is so inconvinence... why M7 is electronic... :)

Great stuff and.t

Love slides, it just have an analogue feel hard to be rivalled.

Anyway, haven't used my M6 for a while, last was a black and white at a wedding. Nothing compares with a Leica and like you was rather distraught to hear of its financial woes. But bound to happen. Its 135 format is a huge limitation as DC has rivalled that to many people. Hasselblad is still surviving...

Was thinking before how Leica can be saved, can't think of how at all. Wish them luck. Please kindly add me.

M6TTL LHSA 0.72
Sumilux 75mm/1.4

(Contax & Rollei too :)

SWC and BenYc,

Just sharing but don't take it serious. I have heard that a camera repairman may damage the glass element by over polish a glass piece, especially there was mold eroded badly !!!! If the old version M 35 F1.4 is really that bad, then it is not hard to find the picture in this style in many Japanese camera books. But it is OK, since SWC has send them all out.

Agreed with BenYc,

But the most annoying thing is not changing films to my M, it is my wife to keep complaining me why take so long to load a film roll. "See the other shooters have moved up far and occupied the great sceneic spots, and the tour bus would not wait for you.............. !!!"

Those great German made cameras would not concern the word of "ergonomic", even the R8 and R9 are made for the big hands, comparing with the EOS1 side by side you would know what I mean. Some products like Hassle 500 Classic, you may ask "Where is the hand rest for my left hand to hold the "Box" and how I work the best when I rolling the winding crook."I guess the common mind set of these camera designers is requiring the users to take some lessons to get in use of them.

Getting the information of lens perspective, depth of field, accurate focusing, is not the selling point of Ms. The advanced model of these range finder cameras should be SLR. A real "shoot what you see" type camera. I used my both Ms to do the focusing test with my lenses. A simple test is put a scale rule and with slightly titled. The scale start (say scale marked at 1cm) is pointing to me and the end is away. Focus at 10cm, wide open the aperture, then press the shuttle & etc. When I got the prints, I noted an interesting thing. All lenses has slight off focus......!! One get sharp in 11cm and one get 9.5 near 10.....!! I am sure that the service centre can tight up the tolerance of anyone lens with one body ( they have to be tuned in a set, in order to get the best result), but it may off centre when you swap in another lens work with the same body.....! Therefore it is not a test for lens' focus accurance. But a lesson to you know them better, than you can work with them better. It is Leica not Hexar or EOS.

If you own a SWC, in terms of loading film and focusing you know it's even worst to operate than the Ms, and so mar fan.... It isn't designed for any accurate focus even it is possible but the complicated steps is no way an user friendly design at all.

Have fun to work with your person gems.

Thanks and.t for the comment.

Guess I may as well bash Leica M a bit...
1. Film loading is stupid
2. No grip
3. No markings on frame line for the forgetables
4. Tripod hole not on the axle
5. Viewfinder being blocked by most lens

M7 is even more pathetic.. a wannabe "advanced" camera that lost the heritage of M.....

and.t hing,

May be you've mistaken that the M 35 f1.4 lenses i tries were used items. No, they were brand new units in maker's box. That's why it made i believe that it was a fault in the design to make the lens to such large aperture, althought it was already great in 1961 without any computer aid. Mr. Ho's comment was also referring to new lenses, not used one. Erwin Puts's comment for this lens on the Leica web site you recommended also concurred with the shortcomming in performance at full aperture. A description of this lens in the Leica Pocket Book published by Hove Collectors has similar results. Totally agreed that if a lens has been repaired for whatever reasons, its performance could not be justified. Certainly this is not a bad lens, I only had reservation for its performance at full aperture that could not justify its much higher price than the 35mm f2 of the same generation. By stopping down to f2 or more, it certainly retained what you called Leica quality or taste. IMHO


BenYc hing,

^^One of them being so hard to focus near object with big aperture len wide open. This is especially impossible if the focusing object is off center^^

Wide opening the lens doesn't affect the focusing of a rangefinder camera like the Leica M, may be what you meant is the depth of field/or depth of focus. The depth of field is affected by 3 factors:
1) The permissible diameter of circle of confusion in the negative.
2) f number
3) The image size, i.e. the ratio of reproduction.

The 1st factor refers to resolving power of the lens and film emulsion when prints made are examined under a correct distance with allowance for any degree of enlargement. Most photographers ignor this since it is beyond their control.

In your case, it is the 2nd 3rd factor which decreases the depth of field with a little deviation in focus. If the rangefinder of your camera is properly calibrated by the service centre, there shouldn't be problem in focusing any object within its focusing range. It is indeed a little inconvenient when the object is off centre. On the contrary, when using wide angle lens under low lighting condition, my experience is: a rangefinder camera can focus much easier than a manual focus SLR. The easy of focus of a SLR is affected by factors like: speed and focal length of the lens, brightness of screen ...etc. All these factors will not apply to rangefinder focusing. The only drawback is that you have to focus with the small pasted rectangle in the centre. Anyway, to increase the depth of field by stopping down is a general practic to photographers.

No offence to and.t, just interested to know when you did the focusing test, was it 10cm that the lens was focused at as mentioned?

Happy shooting & listening

Thanks and.t for the comment＞＞＞ No thanks I like to share..........and talk, and talk, and talk....!

Guess I may as well bash Leica M a bit...
1. Film loading is stupid＞＞＞＞＞ The more time you spend on fooling around the film loading, very higher chance that the others would note and admire that you're using a Leica and say" Oh this is a Leica, the way of film loading is different from my EOS, it is classic !!"＞＞＞＞

2. No grip＞＞＞＞Incorrect, it does have a plastic add on hand grip, but doesn't match with the Ms, may be the original design is come form Bessal L- Cosina＞＞＞＞

3. No markings on frame line for the forgetables ＞＞＞＞they can't help, for cost cutting prupose, they even cut off the most admired classic engrave on the top, unless you pay lot more for the Ltd Edition＞＞＞＞

4. Tripod hole not on the axle＞＞＞＞＞ No need , they claimed the large aperture lens is the best to capture the poor light even with hand held, if your cron is not fast enough, then get the lux. When everybody doing their large zoom lens with a tripod, and you are holding just a M with bare hands and with the body posture slightly bend in style.....then they do know you are a Leicaman＞＞＞＞＞＞.

5. Viewfinder being blocked by most lens ＞＞＞＞The ultimate performance of their lenses is good enough to let you crop the film＞＞＞＞＞＞

M7 is even more pathetic.. a wannabe "advanced" camera that lost the heritage of M..... ＞＞＞＞＞Due to the Leica AG learnt the mistake of M5, so they have to maintain the same M body but stuck in the so called high tech eletronics inside. However the accuracy of the light exposure is no way better than M6 ＞＞＞＞＞

I am kidding here, don't take it serious !!

Thanks and.t for the comment＞＞＞ No thanks I like to share..........and talk, and talk, and talk....!

Guess I may as well bash Leica M a bit...
1. Film loading is stupid＞＞＞＞＞ The more time you spend on fooling around the film loading, very higher chance that the others would note and admire that you're using a Leica and say" Oh this is a Leica, the way of film loading is different from my EOS, it is classic !!"＞＞＞＞

Only if I was not in a rush and dropped the bottom cover on the floor and stepped on it by accident...

2. No grip＞＞＞＞Incorrect, it does have a plastic add on hand grip, but doesn't match with the Ms, may be the original design is come form Bessal L- Cosina＞＞＞＞

The grip fits well. The ＞1mm space between the grip and the camera body if for user to self add a double sided foam tape to secure both incase the plastic grip breaks.

3. No markings on frame line for the forgetables ＞＞＞＞they can't help, for cost cutting prupose, they even cut off the most admired classic engrave on the top, unless you pay lot more for the Ltd Edition＞＞＞＞

Guess M users are spontaneous users that don't even have time to focus... hell with the frame line.

4. Tripod hole not on the axle＞＞＞＞＞ No need , they claimed the large aperture lens is the best to capture the poor light even with hand held, if your cron is not fast enough, then get the lux. When everybody doing their large zoom lens with a tripod, and you are holding just a M with bare hands and with the body posture slightly bend in style.....then they do know you are a Leicaman＞＞＞＞＞＞.

I see. No wonder there TTL also sucks....

5. Viewfinder being blocked by most lens ＞＞＞＞The ultimate performance of their lenses is good enough to let you crop the film＞＞＞＞＞＞

This is what they think... No wonder they miss out the digital part.... R digital back is coming? Sending to HK by camels? Can camels swim?

M7 is even more pathetic.. a wannabe "advanced" camera that lost the heritage of M..... ＞＞＞＞＞Due to the Leica AG learnt the mistake of M5, so they have to maintain the same M body but stuck in the so called high tech eletronics inside. However the accuracy of the light exposure is no way better than M6 ＞＞＞＞＞

And the high tech electron is so advanced and resembles the Minolta CLE.... What an advancement.

I am kidding here, don't take it serious !!

So am I. But in all jokes there are certain truth in it. :)

SWC hing,
Sorry for not being clear on the focusing..

I am not doubting the accuracy of the range finder. I am doubting the degree of accuracy needed and can obtain from the small little focusing box when precision is needed. Precision is needed when shooting wild open at near object. The depth of field is shallow and the object can easily fall off the depth without being noticed. Eg, I used the notilux in dark area for atmostphere.. but I have yet feel comfortable with close up....

Happy shooting. :)

BenYc hing,

^^I am not doubting the accuracy of the range finder. I am doubting the degree of accuracy needed and can obtain from the small little focusing box when precision is needed. Precision is needed when shooting wild open at near object.^^

The focusing device of a camera is either accurate or not accurate, the degree of accuracy should be the same for near or distant object. According to Leica, if i remember correctly, the M focusing system was the best on the market that could focus to an accuracy of within 1cm.(or 1mm.?) If you can forgive its inaccuracy for distant object with small f no., don't blame it for close object at wide open. It may not be the inaccuracy of focuing leading to the unsatisfactory shots you experienced.

This may lead to another topic to discuss, i.e the lens designed for specific use. Universal lenses equally suitable for all tasks of photography do not exist. Most lenses are designed to perform thier best when shooting at infinity .You may be awared that almost all leading manufactures make special lenses for close-up photograhy, eg. Macro Elmarit, Makro Planar of Carl Zeiss, ...etc., whatever the lens named Macro, and are of medium speed only. They are not just made for the convenience to focus down to the reproduction scale of 1:1 or larger, but also computed to give optimum performance at this focusing range. All makers do advise stopping down of the lens for better performance.

In is advisable to have a thorough understanding of the lens you own and know which field of photography it is best to work in. The Noctilux is fun to work with at full aperture for distance object. For candid shot or journalist, it is a gem. If you challenge it with close-up shots at wide open, you have to accept its limitation, then you will feel happier or you are making youself uncomfortable. IMHO

Hi SWC Hing,

Sorry for not being clear again. When I was talking about close up, I meant something in the 5-10 ft range... very probable at indoor photography. For macro, I do think R100/2.8 is hard to beat. Even more amazing when partner with 2X extender. (By the way the 2X is a real gem if I am to praise Leica.)

As for the depth of field, maybe I misled you a bit. Pls look at the depth of field range on the len at such distance and probably you will know what I mean.

Happy shooting.

BenYC hing,

My apology. May be i confused you this time. Since you were talking about photographing near objects, 'close-up or macro' might not be the appropriate terms i've used. Nearly all M lenses cannot focus nearer than 70cm.(except the dual range 50mm f2 which can focus to 48cm with the help of a removable spectacle viewfinder), which is only in the medium distance range rather than close-up or macro.

Below is an excerpt from the book "Leica R-Lenses meet all requests under any situation for any application"

^^^ As a rule, 35mm camera lenses reach their optimum optical performance when focused on infinity, which corresponds roughly to 50-100x the focal length of the lens. Within the nearer range image quality decreases unavoidably. This falling-off of performance is usually unnoticable in practice. But with some lenses, for instance very wide-angle high-speed lenses, an appreciable worsening of image quality can occur.^^^

I hope this will give explanation to your query.

Your are right, the depth of field is very shallow with large ratio of reproduction at wide open aperture. So together with the general characteristics in lens design as quoted by Leitz, even you're photographing object of medium distance, say 5-10ft, failure in obtaining good result could possibly due to the combined adverse condition rather than the focusing system of the camera.

May be there are some other reasons which is beyond my knowledge, i would appreciate very much to learn and hear comments from more experienced members.

Dear All leica fans,
I missed your comments for several days. I am back for discussion.
For BenYC, and.t hings:
You pointed out the "weakness" of M series, I can share with your points. However, you may want to find out the applications of M series, why Leica made it 80 years ago, and today, they still made it.
M series was designed for travel and light weight applications. If you look for close-up or marco, you need different set up. If you want to get DOF information before shooting, you need different set up. If you want to get hair line sharp image, you also need different set up. If you want to load film very fast, (I don't know the reason why you need to load film quickly, for sport shooting, for reporting news..) you need different set up.
Before we go too details of the discussion about the technical matters, we are better to find out what we want to discuss. If you are photo lover, you can only need Leica M. But if you are a photo-worker (living for making pictures), you need more than just Leica M. Because it has certain limitation.
Same as, when you use the advance Canon DSLR, you can't get the "analog" feels from Leica.
I think it is very important for us knowing why we use it, and how we can use it well. You need to spend times (a lot of times) with the M, understanding the limitations, overcoming them, then you can find the value of the M.

For SWC hing issues: I have never used 35mm 1.4 before '80. I could not afford this lens when I was young. I heard this problem, but I think Leica has overcome this issue. If so, why we don't use the newer version which gives you better images and values...

35mm f1.4 is the most useful lens for M series. If you don't like it, the only reason will be : it is too heavy for long travel. Then, 35mm f2.0 will be the only replacement. M6 and 35mm is the best combination. However, many leica fans like M3 with 50mm f1.4 or 35mm f2.0. Anyone can share this experience?

Hi Leicatam Hing,
No more bashing on M. Just could not resist to rib on it once in a while for some fun

Agree best combo for M6 (.72) should be 35mm.
For M6HM, 50 should be better. Think this is primariy due to the userfriendliness of different viewfinder with different lens.

Among all M lens, I think M21/2.8 is a real gem. An often underrated/less common lens is the 75/1.4.

Happy shooting.

^^^I think it is very important for us knowing why we use it, and how we can use it well.^^^

Totally agree.

^^^I think it is very important for us knowing why we use it, and how we can use it well.^^^ X 3

Re: 50 M, I have owned the old version 50 Lux with 70'S hood version (I like the attached hood very much it is real M classic), Dual ring 50 Cron and latest 6 elements 50 Cron. But finally I stick with the latest 50 Cron. The 1.4 stop of Lux has carried the same problem as the old 35 Lux as mentioned by SWC. Even the Lux set as F2, it is still the 50 Cron will beat it at wide open. Most of the old Summilux were designed for merely a faster lens. The slight inferior performance compare with those Crons is the trade off, perhaps because of the design limitation. But I don't know how good the 50M summilux ASPH would be. Since it has just launched within a year.

^^^However, many leica fans like M3 with 50mm f1.4 or 35mm f2.0.^^^

leicaman hing,

IMHO, Nowadays, M series, or may be most 35mm. film camera users are advanced amateurs, or collectors. Only those who value or concern very much on the so called analogue quality prints or slides will still stick to traditional photographic material and processing. In terms of easy of use and speedy examination of the result, digital is miles ahead of analogue photo gear. No wonder why nearly all news journalist use digital. Their first choice is a camera to shoot fast and able to send out the picture as soon as they wish. Picture quality is only of the second consideration.

Some Leica fans today treat their M gear as toys. Just like collecting antiques. They enjoy its inconvenience in handling because they are fed up with idiot cameras. For real shooting, an M6 could be of more advanced design. But the M3 is more fun to play with. The "weakness" as pointed out by BenYC are sometimes enjoyments, and.t hing's points of view on those "weakness" might be just what the Leica fans's are looking for and enjoy the progress in overcoming them. 35mm for M3 has a classical viewfinder attachment easily idenfied and admired by other, again as and.t mentioned, to be a Leicaman. They reason for choosing f2 is, again as we have discussed, is a better valued lens than the f1.4. Besides, the M3 looks more classical than the M6. I would vote M3 as the best looking in the M series.

Correction

leicaman hing should be leicatam

My apology

I agree M3 is more classical in appearance than M6. Just look at the viewing windows, they are properly "framed" with a metal square while M6 doesn't.