Re: [Leica]M6 vs F100

[InfinityDT@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/19/99 11:44:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
woc2@earthlink.net writes:

<<  <snip>I brought my
 M6/noct and F100/80-200 2.8.  It should come as no surprise but the winner 
for
 ease of use, ability to grab action shots, etc was the F100.  I'm sure that 
is
 not a surprise to many. 
 Shot a lot with the M6 using the now famous large DOF hyper focal method to 
cut
 down of focus.  Problem with that is most motor racing shots look better 
with a
 shallow dof, which is no easy task with a rangefinder.  >>

My experiences with photographing auto racing with the M have been quite the 
opposite.  (I guess that's the individuality of photography!)  Also, and this 
is strictly a personsal bias, I find that the shots I like best are the ones 
gotten by panning with the cars.  That way, the motion is suggested and the 
background is thrown out of focus due to blur, so a smaller stop (greater 
DOF) is usable and the resulting slower shutter speed is acceptible.  If I 
can get down at trackside, a 50mm (Summicron) is fine, but if I'm in the 
stands I usually end up with the 135, although I've also used the 400 Telyt 
and a Visoflex on a short monopod.  I do use AF SLRs (currently the F5) quite 
a lot but find that the AF tracking works better for subjects moving toward 
and away from the camera, as opposed to across the frame.  In contrast to 
most dyed-in-the-wool Leica lovers, it is with candid portraiture of moving 
subjects using the 75 or 90 at wider stops for shallow DOF that I find AF 
more effective than the M's rangefinder.  Even a manual-focus SLR is easier 
for me in that situation.  The few times I've had only my M with me and tried 
following a toddler around I ended up with very, very few sharp shots.  I 
much prefer AF and a zoom lens for that.

DT