Leica limitations

[Steve_F]

Hi all,
I've had my M6TTL (first M) for 9 months now and was trying to figure out something that was 'lacking' in my Leica photography - it's getting in close. The near focus on the Leica is so much less than my FM3A (Nikkors)
My 'style' (for want of a better word) is to get in close. I can't do this with the Leica. An example is a scene outside a cafe - cup/mug/ashtray very, very prominent in the frame, and stop down to 2.8 or 4 so as to just bring the background in. Or my 7 month old daughter beginning to crawl on her stomach. Just hands and face filling the frame.
It really is quite frustrating. :bang:
So much so that I am seriously contemplating going back to full Nikon again.
Any other users out there feel the same or offer a sensible priced alternative (not a 90 Elmar Macro set-up).

Cheers,

Steve.

[dogberryjr]

It's still .7m minimum focus, but I think the 28mm Elmarit would suit your purposes.

[hendriphile]

A DR Summicron will focus to 20" and @ f/2 will give a tiny DOF... but it may or may not fit on your M6... you'd have to try a sample on your M6 to ensure compatibility.

[JPSuisse]

So what focal lengths did you generally use on your Nikons?

What focus lengths do you have for your M?

What distance do you usually shoot from?

JP

[Matus]

Hey - there are 35, 50 (older summicron) and 90 mm lenses that come with googles for rangefinder that allow quite a bit closer focusing. They can only be used on Leica cameras as they must fit perfectly on the rangefinder position/size/optics.

I hope others can share more details.

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Steve,

Any 90mm at a metre gives you about the same field of view as a 50mm at 18 inches or so. But given your style, indeed, an SLR may suit you better.

Cheers,

R.

[Mudman]

exactly what I've been doing Roger. When I need closer, I switch to a longer lens.

[ferider]

One of the two Leica 75mm lenses that focus down to 0.7m.

[k.a]

i bougth a cheep 90mm tele elemarit for "this" purpose of getting close. it focus down to about one meter which is enogth to get almost macro

[Steve M.]

Just buy a Leicaflex SL w/ a Summicron 50 and 90. They focus MUCH closer than the rangefinder lenses, and are just as good. Nikon lenses, well, they aren't Summicrons, know what I mean? And the Leicaflex will make your Nikons seem like not-so-well built cameras in comparisons. The viewfinder in the SL is like a big, bright picture window. I'm still kicking myself for selling mine, but if I go back to 35mm that's the only camera I'll need.

This was w/ an R 50 Summicron.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4101/4750314126_8c77184ef5_b.jpg

[Jamie Pillers]

Steve,
I'm with you. There are so many annoying things about the Leicas, at least with the bodies I can afford.

First is the cost. For an amateur photog, IMO there's no need for Leica gear. For FAR less $$, I can have a top of the line Nikon film body and mint lenses... same gear that's produced fabulous pictures for many pros for years and years.

Image quality from Leica gear is over-hyped IMO, especially for amateur photographers that aren't making huge prints. I've found that Nikkor and Voigtlander lenses give me stunning results.

The Leica viewfinders are a real pain-in-the-rear for us eyeglass wearers. Any time this issue comes up here, we spend whole threads talking about work-arounds. No such problem with SLRs. I cannot see the widest frameline of the M2, 3, 4, or 6 (the bodies I've tried), at least not without moving my eye all over the place. By that time, the 'decisive moment' is long gone.

With my SLRs I can mount any focal length and not have to resort to add-on viewfinders or guesswork.

Close focus issue... too many work-arounds using rangefinder gear!

There's only one issue that keeps me in the rangefinder game, and that's quiet shutters. My little Nikon FG is pretty quiet, but those M, LTM, and fixed-lens rangefinder cameras are QUIET! But I've just about gotten over this issue as well. :)

[Dwig]

Just buy a Leicaflex ...[/img]

Exactly. The OP's rant about "Leica" and mention of possibly "going back to full Nikon again" need to be translated into the correct terms, "rangefinder" and "going to an SLR" respectively.

The limitations the OP mentions are not Leica specific, they apply to all RF's, even the great Nikon RF's from the '50s. The advantages alluded of returning to Nikon aren't Nikon specific, but instead apply to virtually all SLRs.

[Phil_F_NM]

the ZM lenses focus down closer than 2m I believe. The 15mm CV Heliar will focus to one foot. On any M body these are scale focus distances. The Zeiss Ikon has a longer RF baselength and closer focusing than a Leica M is built in, I believe that's why the ZM lenses are like this. It's one reason that I'm looking to get an F2 and a micro-Nikkor for my next trip.

Phil Forrest

[braver]

Hey like you said, it shouldn't be so bad to shoot nikon. Lots of famous photogs do very well without any need of Leica. Wouldn't want to be in a magazine fashion shoot with a leica, 28 elmarit and a roll of trix. It's the bees knees outonthe street, but you need to pick a camera that works best where you are, not the other way around. No shame in going all Nikon, the stuff rocks, especially when you look at the price tags.

[ferider]

The Leica viewfinders are a real pain-in-the-rear for us eyeglass wearers. Any time this issue comes up here, we spend whole threads talking about work-arounds.

Part of the problem is created by our online-selves, by promoting a wrong stereotype, namely that RFs and Teles don't go together.

An M3 with 75 or 90mm lens is about as perfect a portrait setup, as it gets, IMO. Also with eye glasses. And no, 50mm lenses don't need to get closer than 1m - if you also carry a 90mm in your bag. Etc.

Roland.

[cnphoto]

Standard pros v cons. If your cons outweigh your pros, find a better solution.

I did this and rangefinders where, for me, the best solution.

[Joop van Heijgen]

For macro and close up work I do use the Leicaflex SL with the Macro-Elmarit R 2,8/60 and the Elmarit 2,8/90...
Magnificent lenses and not too expensive to buy...
The Leicaflex have the same quality level as the M 4, M6 etc...

[Brian Sweeney]

Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5, wide-open, on the M8:

http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=219&pictureid=2491

On the Nikon SP, wide-open.

http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=166&pictureid=1560

Summicron 90/2, E48 version, wide-open on the M8:

http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=245&pictureid=2563

Canon Serenar 85/2 on the M8, wide-open.

http://www.ziforums.com/picture.php?albumid=222&pictureid=2274

These go for $125 or less.

[Steve_F]

Once again stacks of helpful information. Thanks.
I hope nobody feels this was a jibe at Leica. It is simply a RF v SLR comparison as was pointed out.
I tended to use 35mm/2 and 50/1.8 on my FM3A. The flip side being that wide open off centre the quality between the two manufacturers is apparent. Stopped down slightly I have had 18x12 prints with my Nikkors.
I love the size and quietness of my M - not that the FM3A is big or noisy. I've spent to much time tabbing with stacks of kit too(ref 25lbs Canon DSLR). Taking my Mamiya RZ67 set up and a Nikon F5 up the beautiful mountains of Snowdonia North Wales.
I guess the truth is an SLR is more my style, of course I now have a tiny Leica set-up when I should have maybe bought Zeiss ZF!

Any further info etc is still appreciated.

Steve.

[kshapero]

Steve,
I'm with you. There are so many annoying things about the Leicas, at least with the bodies I can afford.

First is the cost. For an amateur photog, IMO there's no need for Leica gear. For FAR less $$, I can have a top of the line Nikon film body and mint lenses... same gear that's produced fabulous pictures for many pros for years and years.

Image quality from Leica gear is over-hyped IMO, especially for amateur photographers that aren't making huge prints. I've found that Nikkor and Voigtlander lenses give me stunning results.

The Leica viewfinders are a real pain-in-the-rear for us eyeglass wearers. Any time this issue comes up here, we spend whole threads talking about work-arounds. No such problem with SLRs. I cannot see the widest frameline of the M2, 3, 4, or 6 (the bodies I've tried), at least not without moving my eye all over the place. By that time, the 'decisive moment' is long gone.

With my SLRs I can mount any focal length and not have to resort to add-on viewfinders or guesswork.

Close focus issue... too many work-arounds using rangefinder gear!

There's only one issue that keeps me in the rangefinder game, and that's quiet shutters. My little Nikon FG is pretty quiet, but those M, LTM, and fixed-lens rangefinder cameras are QUIET! But I've just about gotten over this issue as well. :)Jamie, you're pushing it, bud. Don't do it Jamie. Don't burst the Leica balloon, don't please.:D:D

[rxmd]

Part of the problem is created by our online-selves, by promoting a wrong stereotype, namely that RFs and Teles don't go together.

Well, that's in fact one of those stereotypes which I find absolutely justified. I've been using 85, 90 and 135 lenses on a Leica with a 0.72x viewfinder for a while. I simply hated it. For some time I tried to force myself to like it, and eventually I gave up because it's such a squinty affair, with wildly inaccurate framing. I guess it's an acquired taste, like Marmite, fermented mare's milk or Visoflexes.

Eventually I went back to the SLR for everything longer than 50. Through-the-lens viewing hath its advantages and teles are one of them. A large image, faster portrait lenses, close focusing, and visually being able to put focus exactly where I want it made all the difference.

[Brian Sweeney]

You will always find users that live inside a "Brand Bubble" and cannot evaluate the gear in an unbiased manner.

It is best to know the limitations of the equipment that you are using, and have an alternative when the situation calls for it.

Now- for the situation that the OP refers to, the use of a short telephoto extends the capability of the Leica into that domain. I found that using a 50mm lens on an SLR close-up to get baby photo's was a limitation. Basically, "too close for comfort" and the "Daddy factor". Putting a little distance between yourself and the subject, especially a toddler, was the real solution.

As far as using Telephoto lenses on a rangefinder camera, I and others just do not have a problem with it. I can focus and frame the Nikkor 8.5cm f2 wide-open and close-up faster than i can using the Nikkor 85/2 on the F2a.

[Ronald M]

In principle, the RF camera focuses very well but frames poorly. The slr frames better, perfect if you have a pro nikon body, but focuses poorly. Take your choice, but you don`t get both.

If you elect to use a RF, there are close up accesories for older 50 mm lenses, and lenses like the DR to get you in closer. I have no idea of comparability with M8. And there is always the visoflex which is simply marvelous. Good copies of compatable viso lenses may be hard to find.

[david.elliott]

I hate not being able to see the full framelines of my m3 or bessa r. :\

[icebear]

To get a close up shot of a coffee mug, a flower, a leaf or baby shot no. #1248 for that matter, you can always get 150 GBP P'n Shoot with "flower setting". Panasonics even have Leica glass if need be . Sorry couldn't help it ...;):D

[jonmanjiro]

They're just cameras ya know ;)

If the Leicas (i.e. rangefinders) aren't working for ya, dump 'em and go back to Nikon (i.e. SLR). No shame in that. And the FM3A is an excellent camera.

[David Hughes]

No need to dump anything.

There are times when different cameras are needed and you just chose the right tool for the job or carry two or three cameras. I often go to airshows with two cameras. The SLR with a 200 or 300mm on it and a RF with a 35mm on it. And sometimes a little P&S for shots of the crowd etc...

Regards, David

[Roger Hicks]

the ZM lenses focus down closer than 2m I believe. The 15mm CV Heliar will focus to one foot. On any M body these are scale focus distances. The Zeiss Ikon has a longer RF baselength and closer focusing than a Leica M is built in, I believe that's why the ZM lenses are like this. It's one reason that I'm looking to get an F2 and a micro-Nikkor for my next trip.

Phil Forrest

Dear Phil,

Closest focus on a Leica is fractionally closer than a ZI at about 0.65 m.

Cheers,

R.

[Ben Z]

Dear Steve,

Any 90mm at a metre gives you about the same field of view as a 50mm at 18 inches or so. But given your style, indeed, an SLR may suit you better.

Cheers,

R.

I agree completely. All camera styles have their fortes, none of them is truly universally perfect for everything. That's why they exist in tandem, otherwise there would be only one type of camera.

[rxmd]

As far as using Telephoto lenses on a rangefinder camera, I and others just do not have a problem with it. I can focus and frame the Nikkor 8.5cm f2 wide-open and close-up faster than i can using the Nikkor 85/2 on the F2a.

I can't do it faster and even slowly I don't like it.

It appears to be a case of different strokes for different folks.

[ferider]

It's also a matter of camera, rxmd. Large magnification like on the M3, Canon P, Nikon SP, etc. help a lot. And I do stay mostly away from 135.

[Brian Sweeney]

On seeing the framelines with glasses- I have thick glasses. I can see the 50mm framelines on the M3 without problem. I have to "Look around" to see the entire frame on my FE2 and FM. The F2 is a bit tight to see the shutter speed window and exposure setting, and the F2AS and F2SB LED's are quicker to see. The F3HP is perfect for glasses, as is the N8008s.

For the M8, I use a 1.25x magnifier for the Summicron and Nikkor. The 90mm framelines are perfect for the 10.5cm F2.5, and the 75mm framelines are perfect for the 85mm lenses.

[jsrockit]

Throw the leica in the gutter and go use your nikons.... use whatever works for you. After 20 years of using rangefinders, I use a DSLR as my main tool right now.

[Steve_F]

I think the only that will stop me shifting the Leica is the fact I bought it and the lenses from Leica dealers as it was my first venture into the 'M' system. I might as well keep hold of them for a while and with things like VAT increase in the UK at least I won't make such a loss.
Something else that bugged me is the minor character 'quirks':
Rangefinder vertical alignment - out. Get it sorted
Batteries draining down - Self fix - Still cost me £18.00 in batteries before I had the answer. (Dodgy pins self drain)
Sticking framelines - Repair.
Since September '09 and about thirty five rolls of film.

In 13 years of owning Nikon's my F5 finder went back as one digit for the frame counter 'vanished'. Thats it - period/full stop. All weathers, temperatures they never missed a beat. No idea how many rolls of film. Sold my F5 last year to fund the M6 TTL. So tempted to get back in touch with the buyer to see if they want to sell it back to me!

Guess I'm feeling a little let down.

I'm not an advertising man but my favourite saying I've made up about my Nikon's is:

"It lets me get the shot I want, when I want"

Steve.

[Roger Hicks]

I'm not an advertising man but my favourite saying I've made up about my Nikon's is:

"It lets me get the shot I want, when I want"

Steve.
Dear Steve,

Then again, I'd say the same about my Leicas.

Cheers,

R.

[aperture64]

Use both the Leica and the Nikon. They are different tools for different purposes. Do you use a shovel to put a nail in the wall? Do you use a hammer to dig a hole?

[Mcary]

Use both the Leica and the Nikon. They are different tools for different purposes. Do you use a shovel to put a nail in the wall? Do you use a hammer to dig a hole?

Agree!!!

I love my Bronica system for when I'm working with models but would hate to lugged it around for 2-3 hours to shoot street or other times when weight is a more important then image quality IE the small vs big negative thingy:)

[Jamie Pillers]

I'M SORRY... I TAKE IT ALL BACK! I'm not worthy... :p

[jsrockit]

Do you use a shovel to put a nail in the wall? Do you use a hammer to dig a hole?

No, but I use both my Nikon and my Leica to make photos. :D

[JohnTF]

In principle, the RF camera focuses very well but frames poorly. The slr frames better, perfect if you have a pro nikon body, but focuses poorly. Take your choice, but you don`t get both.

If you elect to use a RF, there are close up accesories for older 50 mm lenses, and lenses like the DR to get you in closer. I have no idea of comparability with M8. And there is always the visoflex which is simply marvelous. Good copies of compatable viso lenses may be hard to find.

DR and the M8 are a no go.

Regards, John

[Brian Sweeney]

I can hammer a nail into the wall with a Nikon F, but I would not.

Any job is easy with the right tool. I would not use a Leica for macro work. I could with a Visoflex and Bellows, but it is a hack. I use a Nikon DSLR with a micro-nikkor lens, and SB-29 speedlight.

I prefer a Rangefinder for most general purpose work. I could use an SLR in place of the RF most of the time. I prefer a rangefinder for low-light photography, and for people-pictures.

[Vics]

RFs have their advantages and disadvantages... Unfortunately, the macro/close and tele end aren't among the advantages. For things like that, an SLR really does shine. Part of its versatility, but you pay for it with size/weight.

I think an FM and most lenses from 24 to 85 would be smaller and lighter than my M3/50 DR. If my "style" needed close focus, I'd go back to my Nikons in a second. They're sitting right there in their case. I use them on the rare occasion when I shoot with a long lens. If I were the OP, I'd go back. Leica isn't for everyone.
Vic

[Roger Hicks]

^ Agreed. It's too hard to get an M to do this... :D

http://litpixel.com/ee/images/normal/_1D_2413.jpg

Shot with a Canon 1D Mark IIn, 50mm f/1.2L and 66mm worth of tubes w/AB800 strobes.

Viso makes it easy.

Cheers,

R.

[Brian Sweeney]

A Viso makes it easy when compared to using an RF without through the lens viewing for close-up work. If I honestly thought a Viso was easier to use than a Nikon DSLR with a 70~180 Micro-Nikkor-Zoom, I would buy myself an M9 for work immediately. If I could even half-kid myself, enough to rationalize buying one, I would. It would be like getting a free M9, just for the price of lying to myself.

[Roger Hicks]

A Viso makes it easy when compared to using an RF without through the lens viewing for close-up work. If I honestly thought a Viso was easier to use than a Nikon DSLR with a 70~180 Micro-Nikkor-Zoom, I would buy myself an M9 for work immediately. If I could even half-kid myself, enough to rationalize buying one, I would. It would be like getting a free M9, just for the price of lying to myself.

Dear Brian,

Lie to yourself!

It's a great combination: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/worst%20dslr.html

Cheers,

R.

[Brian Sweeney]

Dear Brian,

Lie to yourself!

It's a great combination: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/worst%20dslr.html

Cheers,

R.


Why, I see your point. That makes perfect sense.

Now that I've seen it...

[Juan Valdenebro]

What about focusing on situations a bit beyond one's hand reach? Anyone tried it? :) Just joking... I admit I have macros and even the Nikon bellows...

Cheers,

Juan

[semilog]

I hope nobody feels this was a jibe at Leica. It is simply a RF v SLR comparison as was pointed out.

Have you considered a used R4 and 35 Summicron?

[cosmonaut]

I never from day one considered my M6 a macro camera. If you are into that I think an SLR and a nice set of macro lenses and tubes is your best bet. I use an SLR on rare times for macro. My M6 and EP-1 for the streets, they are small and less noticable.

[ferider]

Funny, the OP never asked either about macro or about super teles.

He asked about "hands and face filling the frame". Is this really such an uncommon subject for us RF shooters ?

For me personally, there is something special & more intimate about using an RF for close portraits. I understand why others might prefer SLRs, but the requirements are not the same as, say, for close-up flower macros.



And no, Leica SLR lenses are not the same as RF lenses, in particular 35mm and wider; even if they carry a red dot. There might be something special about Leica RF bodies. But once you are back in SLR land, all brands are fair game. I personally prefer my OMs, since small, quiet and great viewfinder. If you want the Humvee of SLRs, the Leicaflex will fit.

[cosmonaut]

Well maybe not macro maybe close ups.....cups/mugs/ashtrays, close ups. Outside what most M lenses will do and a pain to focus and set up. I do shots like that with my Oly E3 and it takes image stabilization for me too unless the light is great. I still think an SLR with the right lens is the best choice.

[mooge]

remember Capa's famous words:
"If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough."
:D

(not really related: I once took apart a Leicaflex SL. took apart. yeah. they're stupid complex. dumbest repair I've ever attempted... :bang:)

[ampguy]

I'd keep the RF, but get a D40 or D90 and 12-24 zoom. That will give you 12" close focus and cover 85% of your focal length needs.

I just got back from a trip, that was a mix of landscapes, wildlife, macro, architecture, street and travel, and missed some good opps by having a 15/21 on the RF, while approaching some wildlife, that the photogs with zooms got full frame images of, and I have very tiny images of the wildlife.

[jonmanjiro]

I think the only that will stop me shifting the Leica is the fact I bought it and the lenses from Leica dealers as it was my first venture into the 'M' system. I might as well keep hold of them for a while and with things like VAT increase in the UK at least I won't make such a loss.
Something else that bugged me is the minor character 'quirks':
Rangefinder vertical alignment - out. Get it sorted
Batteries draining down - Self fix - Still cost me £18.00 in batteries before I had the answer. (Dodgy pins self drain)
Sticking framelines - Repair.
Since September '09 and about thirty five rolls of film.

In 13 years of owning Nikon's my F5 finder went back as one digit for the frame counter 'vanished'. Thats it - period/full stop. All weathers, temperatures they never missed a beat. No idea how many rolls of film. Sold my F5 last year to fund the M6 TTL. So tempted to get back in touch with the buyer to see if they want to sell it back to me!

Guess I'm feeling a little let down.

I'm not an advertising man but my favourite saying I've made up about my Nikon's is:

"It lets me get the shot I want, when I want"

Steve.

Sounds like the only thing to decide now is whether to shift the Leica and take the loss, or hang onto it. The good news is that going forward the Leica probably won't depreciate in value any more than it has, so is probably a safer "investment" than shares, bonds, etc. :rolleyes:

[Steve_F]

Of course having said all of this I can't take away the fact I love using my M. The feel, it's actions and it's compactness.
I want it to work! Reckon I need to spend the next few months working out how to get it to fit my style.

Steve.

[Steve_F]

Roger, I found this on your site and it sums it up perfectly.

"The point is that making you want to take pictures is the measure of any camera, whether the best or the worst. It makes you go and look for pictures to take."

Steve

[Brian Sweeney]

I bought my first RF at age 11 and my first SLR at 13. I used mostly SLR's after that point until I was 40, after we had Nikki. I was getting too close with the 50mm lens on the SLR for her comfort, and the "moment was gone". I have portrait lenses for the SLR's, but wanted to see what was going on outside of the FOV of the lens. Back to the Nikon RF, and picked up an M3 not much later.

Try an 85/2 or a 90/2. Get the 1.25x magnifier if you need to, they are not expensive on EBay. Give it a try, if you do not like it you can always sell the gear.

[Steve_F]

Quite a few suggestions to try the '90mm' route. I shall look into it (No pun intended on a Rangefinder).

Steve.

[Frontman]

Unfortunately, the dual-range Summicron goggles will not fit on the M6, due to it's taller top cover. Wider angle lenses can focus closer, but that advantage is lost as subjects shrink in size in the wider field of view.

Rangefinders do have serious limitations, which is why the SLR was invented, and why it continues to be the professional's tool of choice in the majority of their work.

For my own photography rangefinders suit me quite well. But if I wanted a universal camera which could do everything well, I would have to choose an SLR camera.

[Joop van Heijgen]

[quote=ferider;1358232]

And no, Leica SLR lenses are not the same as RF lenses, in particular 35mm and wider; even if they carry a red dot. There might be something special about Leica RF bodies.

I doubt if you can compare the differences between a Summicron R 2,0/50 and and a Summicron M 2,0/50 ...
And the difference between the Elmarit R 2,8/90 and the Elmarit M-2,8/90...
And the difference between the R-Elmarit 2,8/35 and the M Summicron 2,0/35 etc...

[ferider]

OK, then, what's the equivalent R lens for the OP's 35/2 Summicron ASPH ? Does it perform more like an R-Elmarit 2,8/35, or more like a modern Canon or Nikon 35mm lens ?

[Joop van Heijgen]

OK, then, what's the equivalent R lens for the OP's 35/2 Summicron ASPH ? Does it perform more like an R-Elmarit 2,8/35, or more like a modern Canon or Nikon 35mm lens ?

Personally I do not find a big difference between M 35/2 Summicron ASPH and the Elmarit R 2,8/35. The Elmarit 2,8/35 is even better than the Summicron R 2,0/35. It is more modern and have a fine sharpness...
But alle these lenses have the special Leica 'look'; (not too sharp) with contrasting and real color performance.

Don't forget that all the R lenses have an excellent level of performance!
There are little differences between the M and R lenses, but they are subtile...
Nowadays Leicaflex (R) lenses are very cheap to buy...
In fact the M lenses are rather expensive but mostly not better than the R lenses....

[ferider]

Hi Joop,

can we maybe agree that the OP might want to try out a new Elmarit-M 90/2.8 before buying a Leica R with several lenses ? :)

Cheers,

Roland.

[Joop van Heijgen]

Hi Joop,

can we maybe agree that the OP might want to try out a new Elmarit-M 90/2.8 before buying a Leica R with several lenses ? :)

Cheers,

Roland.

I love my Leica M4 (P)and have also the Elmarit-M 2,8/ 90 on it.
The price of it was four times of my R-Elmarit 2,8/90 (second hand).:cool:

I think the main difference of these lenses is the difference in use.
In fact the difference between the Leica M and the R system.
I use the 90 Elmarit for mainly fast 'snap shot' portrait photos and the R Elmarit 90 for 'normal' portrait photos.

Joop

[David Hughes]

It might be an idea to start a post on the limitations and problems of using SLR's...

[Brian Sweeney]

Many short telephoto lenses are identical optically between the Rangefinder and SLR version of the lens. In the Nikon lineup, the 10.5cm F2.5 and 13.5cm F3.5 were optically identical in RF and SLR mount. In Leica mount, there were adapters to use the 9cm F2 Summicron head with the SLR. Nikon also made a similar adapter for the 13.5cm F3.5 lens to use with the Nikon F.

But aside from this trivia, what is important is that the OP is going to try a short telephoto on his camera. If he likes the result, problem solved. If he does not like using an RF Camera with a short telephoto, on to the next solution.

[mfogiel]

I will show you 2 examples shot with the same fl:

Zeiss Biogon 25/2.8 ZM- this one focuses down to 50 cm:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2282/1544162482_0aa94b688b_b.jpg

Zeiss Distagon 25/2.8 - this one focuses down to 14cm ! :

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2363/2419547618_3d3ed4089c_b.jpg

Unless you want to really get close, the Biogons ZM are all focusing close and are a great bargain for the quality they give.

[Brian Sweeney]

I highly advise not getting too close to an infant or toddler with a camera.

a) It is a shiny thing and can be grabbed at that range;
b) It is susceptible to moisture and at that distance it is within range of wet-burps.

[Steve_F]

'Mfogiel' - the bottom Image is exactly the type I'm talking about. The top one is also something very similar to my preferred style.
What body was it taken on?

Steve.

[Vincent.G]

Hi Steve, let me share with you my experience. I am in the same boat as you. Coming to RF from SLR background. I still keep both systems as they have strengths over each other. There must reasons why Nikon F mount killed Leica RF back then and similarly, there must reasons why we still have many Leica RF users till now. You must use both in the most demanding situation according to your shooting style and will realize their strengths and weaknesses.

With regards to filling the frame with the baby's face and hands, I share with you the two shots below.

I shot this with M2 and cron 50 DR.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4137/4762807553_1e78d83ac3.jpg

I can do the same with Nikkor 50 f1.4 Ai-S
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4075/4812085360_85218b97b4.jpg

I find shooting with a RF or SLR similar in this situation. I prefer the focusing style of RF as the focusing patch use superimposition. My Nikon F3 and FM3a only has a horizontal split prism that is slightly more difficult to use (I know we can change the screen but I have learnt to handle it).

For both shots above, I metered with incident light meter. The mounting/dismounting of the goggles for the DR is rather troublesome at times. For this matter, the nikkor lens is more user friendly.

My baby is less distracted by the quiet shutter of my M2 but to get this close, it is hard not for them to get distracted by you!