Yo I made $10K on a YOLO options trade in the stock market yesterday, and my account restricted me from trading for 90 days. So after taxes I’d like to spend some of it on another rangefinder. I’ve been eying the M2 and M3 constantly for months and have badly wanted one of the two, though to a lesser extent I like the idea of the M5. I would consider the Zeiss Ikon rangefinder too but I really don’t like how it looks (or the price), but it beats an M6/M7 in my wanted list.
I feel best with 50mm and 85/90mm. I’m still learning how to handle 35mm framing, but I think I could live without 35mm if I had to. I don’t see the point of 135mm on rangefinder. I genuinely like the bezels on the M3. Smaller is always better. M4s don’t look as good as M2s. I don’t trust Canadians with my cameras. I like the idea of an internal meter, but I can live without. I want a meter in an M2. I can’t afford an MP of any variety. Leica M beats LTM bigly
Is there a film akinator here who can tell me what camera matches me closest?
>>3325485>>3325456Yeah what he said. The limited dynamic range really is spectacular if you know how to wield it. In sunlight and shadow, with negative film you can get details in both, and with E6 you basically have to choose if it’ll be blown out or underexposed. Which sounds bad, but you can get some gorgeous chiaroscuro or subject isolation this way that is simply impossible with negative film.
That said, it’s best used in sunlight imo. They’re all slow as fuck and can’t really be pushed or pulled well. Unlike portra 400 which I imagine could look good anywhere between ISO 25-3200 lol
>>3325460It’s a solid film as long as you don’t mind strong yellows and warm tones overall. The graininess is a bit much sometimes though for such a slow film. You really need to shoot it stopped down most of the time to counter that. I did a roll completely wide open with it and even when I nailed focus it looked mediocre.
