M6 shutter speeds - is 1/1000 s enough?

[GWT]

I think I have my GAS under control (isn't that what all addicts say?) and have decided I should steady myself and focus on getting that one "go to" RF I've always wanted.

Thanks to you guys I pretty much felt the M6 was the one to go for, fitting as it was a review of one of the Leica M's I saw in a photo mag which made me fall in love with RF's in the first place.

But then I saw the Bessa R's (M Mounts) and thought "well it's not a Leica M but it is more affordable and it's shutter speed goes up to 1/2000 s!

Now my question is "does that faster speed really matter'?

I'm not meaning to make this about which is better, it's just does that faster speed matter?

Photography wise I'd be using either of those cameras mainly for street pics - loaded with a 400 speed film.

The quieter shutter of the M6 does make a different to me not that the bessa's shutter is a fog horn.

Surely every RF user dreams of owning a Leica but is it just the romance of it?

[kokoshawnuff]

I've always found 1/1000 more than enough when using Tri-x. If its on the edge I can always stop down, use a ND filter/contrast filters, or over expose by a stop or two and figure it out in development or during post processing.

[semilog]

It's *really* nice to have faster speeds, to stop motion and so that you can use wider apertures in bright light when fast film is loaded. I really notice this when I pick up the Nikon FE2 or the X-Pro, both of which go down to 1/4000 rather than the nominal 1/1000 (usually more like 1/800) of the M6.

Still love my M6 though.

[mdarnton]

I like shooting near wide-open and you can't really do that outside with Tri-X and 1/1000. I've been keeping a second camera loaded with Polypan F 50 just for walking around, but I didn't have to buy two Leicas to do that. 1/2000, just one stop, doesn't seem like enough difference to worry about, though.

[Keith]

My Nikon F6 has 1/8000! (walks off whistling with smug expression)

:D

[akiralx]

The Zeiss Ikon has 1/2000....

[shiro_kuro]

Hexar RF has 1/4000

1/1000 has a never been a problem for me while shooting my M4
Though I do enjoy the faster shutter speeds of my M8.2 sometimes .

[Phil_F_NM]

+1 on the Hexar RF.

Phil Forrest

[Never Satisfied]

My Dynax 9 has 1/12000, never used it though!

400ASA + f1.4 will often be way more than 1/1000, as previosly said, ND filters are necessary or slower film.

Andrew.

[baisao]

GWT, what is the ISO of the film you shoot with the most? If it's 400 then just slap a ND on there for the (very) few times you may need it. I shoot with an M6 and think that 1/1000th has been enough for 99% of my shots, YMMV. If anything, I am wanting more light rather than less.

[Pablito]

Yes, it's just the romance.

[stompyq]

ND filters are your friend when shooting wide open

[bhop73]

It's enough for me. I just carry an ND filter with me if it's too bright out.

[steveniphoto]

i almost always push tri-x to 1600 to maintain a fast shutter while my lens is stopped down so in many cases i need 1/2000 max shutter speed to feel comfortable wherever i go.. i normally use my canon elan ii now.

[Godfrey]

I think I have my GAS under control (isn't that what all addicts say?) and have decided I should steady myself and focus on getting that one "go to" RF I've always wanted.

Thanks to you guys I pretty much felt the M6 was the one to go for, fitting as it was a review of one of the Leica M's I saw in a photo mag which made me fall in love with RF's in the first place.

But then I saw the Bessa R's (M Mounts) and thought "well it's not a Leica M but it is more affordable and it's shutter speed goes up to 1/2000 s!

Now my question is "does that faster speed really matter'?

I'm not meaning to make this about which is better, it's just does that faster speed matter?

Photography wise I'd be using either of those cameras mainly for street pics - loaded with a 400 speed film.

The quieter shutter of the M6 does make a different to me not that the bessa's shutter is a fog horn.

Surely every RF user dreams of owning a Leica but is it just the romance of it?


I normally use XP2 Super in my M4-2 and expose it at ISO 250 to 400. I have and use lenses with f/1.4, f/2, f/2.5, and f/4 maximum aperture, and am usually within a stop or two of wide open. I don't normally record exposure time and aperture with the M4-2, but I know I've only rarely used the 1/1000 second.

Looking to see how my exposure times fell out, I checked the last 860 exposures from the M9 in Lightroom made with ISO settings in the same range. Of those, only 13 were made at exposure times of 1/750 second or shorter, the vast majority of my exposures are made at 1/125 to 1/8 second. For me, it seems, only 1/1000 second is not much of a limitation.

I use Leica M bodies because I prefer how they feel and work in my hands. And they consistently make great photographs for me. I've had many other RF cameras over the years and always come back to an M. I've had almost all of them over the years, but the two M4-Ps I owned a decade ago and my present M4-2 and M9 have been my favorites. Why I like them has very little to do with romance, a lot more to do with "they just feel right to me" and they work. In the end, they're simply good cameras that I find satisfying to use.

I would suggest letting go of the fantasy of the name Leica and the over-analyzing of the options. They're not cheap but they're not *that* expensive either, not for a film model bought sensibly. My M4-2 was purchased last September for $720 and I paid another $100 to have it cleaned and have the rangefinder recalibrated. Two nice lenses cost as much as the body. That's not much for the quality of this gear. They're not perfect cameras either ... no camera is perfect.

Buy one–whatever model you like–and use it for a year, with a lens or two you like. At the end of a year, you can sell it for the same thing you bought it for if it doesn't tickle your fancy or proves too limiting, move on from there.

But I suspect you'll just keep using it. Most people do once they let go of "which detail do I think works best for me." They just start making pictures and don't let that stuff stop them. :-)

[btgc]

Now my question is "does that faster speed really matter'?
.....
Photography wise I'd be using either of those cameras mainly for street pics - loaded with a 400 speed film.
....
The quieter shutter of the M6 does make a different to me not that the bessa's shutter is a fog horn.
.....
Surely every RF user dreams of owning a Leica but is it just the romance of it?

Question "does it matters?" is useless without context, right? If there is no need to capture fast moving objects and/or use fast lenses wide open at bright light, then this well formulated question gets answered by itself, like all well formulated questions :)

Let's return to freezing moving objects, which itself is as broad definition as drinks in general. Is it a walking pedestrian, regular cyclist, athlete, car, jet or a missile? Is it moving parallelly or perpendicularly to axis of lens, or maybe at the angle of 45 degrees? This all makes different shutter speeds.

If I don't have specific requirements and shutter speed is just a secondary factor to base choice on, my first factor is camera itself, lenses available, extension capabilities, ergonomics, durability, serviceability, purchase price, maintenance costs, etc. Choice is yours......say, normally people do not drive lowered sports cars in a wild....but some populations drive SUVs in cities :D

[Moriturii]

After using Hexar RF and Leicas for about two years side by side, the final conclusion is:

Hexar RF far superior to Leicas for outdoor work (especially if you use wide-angle lenses a lot, and when it's sunny) and Leica is slightly preferable perhaps for indoors photography. It's as simple as that.

[Dylan Hope]

With enough ND filters, I could live with 1/250th. It just sucks if the lens you own doesn't accept filters without the aid of accessories (But that's pretty rare)

[gavinlg]

My Nikon F6 has 1/8000! (walks off whistling with smug expression)

:D

My Dynax 9 has 1/12000, never used it though!


Heh... My old 1D went to 1/16,000... :cool:

[btgc]

Now you see what "smaller is bigger" means :) Anyone has bigger, hellooo?

[sevo]

Most of my medium and large format cameras are leaf shutter and have highest speeds between 1/100 and 1/500s - the former may prevent using film faster than 100 in summer, unless with a ND filter or going way past the diffraction limit, but the latter generally is no noticeable handicap.

Besides, I try to avoid 1/500 and faster (or, more exactly, speeds shorter than 1/4 of the sync speed) on FP shutters, as I've had a few nasty experiences with cameras silently capping or growing a fading shutter in the past - the drawbacks are often bigger than the benefits of using ultra short speeds.

In general, a maximum of 1/1000 is all you'll ever need, at least when you are not shooting sports for a living.

[Steve M.]

1 stop isn't the end of the world. Going from 1/1000 to say 1/8000, now that's worth it. You can shoot wide apertures in bright sun w/ that. But from 1/1000 to 1/2000 isn't a big deal.

[Damaso]

The answer is most of the time it is fine. If you know that you often shoot things that require a faster shutter speed then get something else. If not then it's fine...

[mfogiel]

The 1/1000 top speed is limiting a bit, but for the street a much more limiting factor is the lack of AE. After all, if you really want to shoot fast, you might even zone focus, so an f8.0 or f 11.0 are handy, and Tri X @250 is surely not an obstacle anymore. If I wanted a dedicated street camera,I'd probably go for Zeiss Ikon or M7, depending on the choice of lens (ZI is best for 35mm)