Part One – To Medium Format and Beyond… for sixty quid…

To most people, film is 35mm. In fact for most people, it never enters their mind that there is anything beyond their digital compact, their 35mm camera or indeed something beyond, “one of those fancy SLR things.” Mention medium or large format to most people and they will go, huh?

In case you are one of those, think of a piece of film like a piece of paper. With 35mm, imagine sketching a landscape on that size of paper? It’d lack a lot of detail and the only way to pack more into that sketch would be to make the pencil ever sharper (my analogy to ISO/ASA speed.) If you enlarge that piece of paper from 1 by 1½-inch to say 2 ½ by 2 ½-inches you can make a more detailed sketch of the landscape because you have more room, even without using the sharpest of pencils. And the same happens again when you move from medium format to large formats like 5×7, 8×10 and so on.

Medium format is a loose definition but in basic modern terms it’s generally always 120 film which allows for exposures in the following sizes (camera dependent.) All sizes are quoted in metric centimetres:

• 6×4.5
• 6×6
• 6×7
• 6×8
• 6×9
• up to 6×17

That is quite a lot larger than a 35mm ‘full frame’ exposure so it stands to reason why medium format is a good proposition. It means greater picture fidelity, finer grain due to not needing to enlarge as much for standard print sizes and in that, the ability to enlarge at a better quality than 35mm. 20×20-inch prints are possible in 35mm but it is likely the equivalent exposure on 120 film will look much better at that size with less grain and greater detail.

So medium format is in this case a larger piece of film than 35mm whereas large format tends to be sheet film for sizes beyond 5×4 inches. Medium format also exists in digital form but is hideously expensive and unlike top notch 35mm digital, medium format film still holds a clear edge over digital medium format although the forthcoming Leica S series and Hasselblad 50 and 60 megapixel sensors (a selling price of £19200 according to Robert White) should be interesting to look at. However, for those you are look at tens of thousands of pounds, certainly from £8000 in the UK for a 16 megapixel Hasselblad system.

But you can get the equivalent quality camera for £60 including a lens. You’d have to shoot a lot of 120 before you get close even to the cost of a 16 megapixel digital medium format camera, let alone the 31 and 39 megapixel models that are out there right now. And as for 50 and 60… The quality of that can’t be in doubt but for the average amateur it’s out of the price range and in my case a 60mp H3DII would be 85% of my entire gross annual income!

If you want to make large enlargements, or have the finest picture quality for your serious, more considered work, 35mm has its limits and medium format can remove those limits. It does not have to be expensive either, the Mamiya TLR (twin lens reflex) camera range is a case in point and can prove to be a stellar bargain.

Unlike every other TLR with one fixed lens (usually a standard 80mm field of view) the Mamiya TLR series features interchangeable lenses from a mild wild angle of 55mm (about 31mm in 35mm focal length) to a positive tele-photo at 250mm.

The second consideration for the Mamiya TLR and TLRs in general is that they take square pictures. Virtually every photo today is in 3:2 format, though some cameras now shoot 16:9/16:10 and Olympus has its Four Thirds system – essentially most photos are now rectangles. But the square format can have a lot going for it and as I have found out and will show you here, some landscapes just cry out to be square.

How cheap can the Mamiyas be? Well I bought a very well used example, it was sctuffy but OK. The paint had worn on corners and it definitely showed signs of heavy use but it was 100% functional and had twelve months of warranty. It also came with an 80mm standard lens, which was a bonus. In total I paid £59 which is nothing for a decent camera. Agreeably I also purchased a 55mm wide angle for £69 and a fantastic Cokin A filter holder for it for £25 (I will go into this special gizmo in the review) but even with all of that I have only just spent over £150 on a camera system that can chuck out fantastic photos in the right hands. It’s a shame it’s lumbered with mine then!

To be continued…

?????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Microsoft ??? Windows 7 ? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Windows 7 ?????? ????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????? ???????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????? !!!

???????????????????????????????????? ????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????? Vista ??? Windows 7 Beta For Testing Purpose Only ?????Microsoft ??????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????? Windows 7 vs XP & Vista ??????????? Windows 7 ???????????????????????????????????? :

-??????????????????????????????? XP ??? Vista ?????????????????????? (Boot Time Optimization) ?

-????????????????????????????????????? XP ???? Vista ????????????????????? (Shutdown time)

-???????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????? Hard Drive, Flash, Network ?????????XP ???? Vista ?

-????????????????????????????? Word, Excell, Power Point, Access 2007 ??????????? ?

-??????????? ????????????? Zip ? Rar ???????? ??? XP ???? Vista ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????? ?

Continued from Part Two

In Use

Prices

• Leica M2 - £300
• Leica MR Meter -  £30
• Voigtlander Color Skopar 35mm f/2.5 - £120
• Voigtlander LTM to M Mount adapter (35mm) - £40
• Camera and Meter from MXV, Uckfield – www.mxv.co.uk
• Voigtlander LTM-M Mount adapter, Robert White – www.robertwhite.co.uk

Most reviews of a Leica usually pour over the specifications, the actual piece of equipment itself. However, any camera is in effect a light tight box which controls the amount of light that comes in and goes on to expose the film or sensor behind it. A Leica is no different in this effect. If you put a 50mm lens on an automatic every bells and whistle SLR (e.g. a Canon EOS 3 or Nikon F6) and a 50mm lens on the Leica, put it in the field and shoot away, the majority of people will see little to no difference if the aperture and shutter speed; as well as the subject are the same. Like any camera, the Leica by itself does not take better pictures. Owning a Leica will not make you a better photographer by default of owning it. What it will do is avail opportunities that some cameras don’t open up, where the nature of a camera like a Leica is best suited.

A good example might be three people at a gig, a low light situation. The person with the 5 x 4 camera is not going to get far with sheets of film, so it’s not ideal in that situation. The next person is armed with a modern SLR, with auto focus. The positives for them are the ability to shoot in rapid succession a number of frames to capture the action. The down sides could be the mirror slap’s noise disrupting the atmosphere (not least the person next to you) and the auto focus mechanism giving up leaving you to manual focus which without a split prism could be a tricky feat at wide apertures. The third person has a coupled rangefinder, with a decent fast lens they should be able to focus accurately most of the time (particularly with wider angle lenses) and shoot in relatively rapid succession to capture the moment in hand.

At no point does this define that one of those cameras is better in all situations, for that situation, a quiet rangefinder has its positives. In another situation such as serious landscape work, a 5×4 view camera may well have the distinct advantage over the other two. Thus there should be no mistaking a Leica by itself is not a better camera because it’s a Leica. Rather it becomes a better camera, in the right hands and in optimal situations – and this applies to types of camera rather than brands per se.

So here’s a tip: your photos lack any purpose and meaning? I can almost guarantee that moving to a Leica all by itself won’t make you a better photographer instantly.

As a very quick review of the features side, the most important thing to point out is that by itself, the M3 versus M2 does not equate the M3 as being better because its designation is higher. They are both excellent cameras on a par and for most people the main difference is the frame lines. The M3 comes if as shipped with frame lines for 50mm, 90mm and 135mm lenses, whereas the M2 comes with 35mm, 50mm and 90mm – which I find infinitely more useful. Others I am sure can point out all the other differences but in a practical sense that is it. It is just important to clear up a quick misunderstanding that the M2 in some way is a lesser sibling to the M3.

Other features include shutter speeds from bulb to 1/1000th of a second, a manually reset frame counter, a frame line preview lever, a fully coupled rangefinder built in and on some M2s (not mine) a self timer. As you can see, there really isn’t much to talk about except to say that what features it has are well made and feel very sturdy. Apart from the self timer which some M2s do not have, the other difference might be the rewind mechanism. All M2s have the ‘old fashioned’ rewind knob opposed to a crank, which slows down the speed at which you can rewind the film once fully exposed; the difference comes in how this rewind mechanism is engaged. Some M2s have a little lever/switch much like other M’s, whilst some have a button that varies in itself. One type of button has to be pushed in and held in whilst rewinding and the second type only needs pushing in once but can then be released to rewind. In my case my M2 came with the lever/switch.

Ok now that slightly tedious part is out of the way let’s move on to the usage of the Leica M2. First up is loading film which whilst widely mocked by some, is not as difficult as some make out. The basic process involves taking off the base plate and the spool, feeding the leader on to the spool, loading the cartridge back into the camera, aligning the sprocket holes on the advance spindle and moving the advance lever forwards a little to pull the film taught. Pop back on the base plate and fire off two frames over the exposed piece of film and off you go. The process probably takes no more than a minute. Much longer than my EOS 3 that takes a matter of seconds.

The beauty of the Leica really comes down to being smaller and lighter than most SLRs, the fact you can change the lenses unlike a lot of compacts (such as the Olympus XA which whilst small, light and very quiet has a fixed 35mm f/2.8 lens, no bad thing in itself) and that it is quieter.

I have been using the Leica M2 with the Leica MR Meter, which helps a little with getting accurate exposures (the M2 is a meter-less body) especially indoors but outside you can generally rely on Sunny 16 once you have a good eye for light and the basic principles of exposure. There is another advantage to the MR meter, it has a nice large knurled shutter speed dial which couples with the M2’s otherwise quite small shutter speed dial. The latter is my biggest annoyance as it can be a little fiddly otherwise (compared to a Bessa, Zeiss Ikon ZI and a more modern Leica M.)

Being a meter-less body, some could fairly rightly point out that they may struggle to get the action, but if you shooting print film, you will have good exposure latitude of 2-3 stops in most cases so you can afford to get the shutter speed a little off. If however you are using the Leica where it excels and that would be street work, documentary (not fast moving e.g. Formula 1 racing!), portraiture and still life/landscape you shouldn’t need to worry about firing off tens of frames in quick succession. In the instances noted above, one light reading will suffice for much of your work until the time of day changes (in general.)

For shooting landscapes, the Leica has fulfilled all that it needed to by being lighter than my SLR, and coupled with the Colour Skopar 35mm f/2.5 lens I have received sharp and pleasing results. In terms of indoor based work say family events, the lighter weight of the M2 has allowed me to shoot perfectly sharp pictures down to 1/15th second which would have resulted in disappointing pictures on the EOS 3 in most cases. Perhaps the clearest sign that the M2 is working out is that overall I thoroughly enjoy using the Leica as a camera but most of all the pictures I have got from it are as reliably enjoyable as those I get from the EOS 3. The last thing I would want is for the standard of my pictures to go down.

My next purchase will be probably a 90mm lens for portraiture work alone for situations where I don’t want to poke an EOS 3 with my 70-200mm f/4L in someone’s face!

Of course there is only so much one can write about a camera and I feel that I have exhausted this one. There is no denying that using a smaller, more simple camera is enjoyable to me but this is not the case for everybody, some people want fully automatic everything cameras but that takes a certain amount of the enjoyment out of the process for me – but again some people will be happy enough with that.

There are a few foibles with the M2 and perhaps M system in general. The shutter speed dial is somewhat small when the MR meter is not attached as already noted. Also, the very lower right corner of the 35mm frame is slightly obscured by my Colour Skopar lens barrel. With a faster lens this would be even more the case. This however would be a complaint for many rangefinders. It takes a while to get used to the ergonomics (what exists of them) of the M cameras, they don’t fit as neatly into the hands to start with as the new R series Bessa cameras, or many modern SLRs. After a while you soon find a comfortable hold of the camera and that complaint passes out of the window. However these are minor annoyances.

So the ultimate result – is it any good for what it was purchased for: taking pictures. It is certainly discrete, so much so that for a lot of people it looks like nothing more than a compact camera and is not taken too seriously. This is actually a positive as people tend to relax more than they do when my EOS 3 is pointed at them. Immediately the assumption for the EOS 3 in my case is that it is a ‘professional’ camera therefore you must be composed and so forth. With the Leica candid work is much easier and the intimacy of the outcomes is apparent. Outdoors for landscapes, the results are just as pleasing as using my EOS 3. The main difference is on the EOS 3 I tended to use the spot meter almost exclusively to pick out the mid-tone in a landscape, instead I now use the MR meter or the Sunny 16 rule (and a combination of both.) The results have been great and that is what counts.

In summary, the Leica M2 is a well made light tight box. It is a pleasure to use and some will often cite that it doesn’t matter about the equipment and that the picture is king. This is largely true but you have to use equipment that you get along with and some pleasure does come from this. An M2 or a Leica in general is not a magic bullet, it’s certainly not perfect for everything but if the need is for a small, light and quiet camera with an interchangeable lens system – a Leica M can be perfect for that. In my case I was lucky to find one for £300 (approximately US $450 in December 200 and that is very much an affordable camera.

For further discussion about the Leicas and rangefinders in general, I recommend the excellent www.RangeFinderForum.com website which not only has plenty of active discussion to ask any questions; but also an excellent archive of thorough answers to previously asked common questions too.

Example photos to follow soon.