Leica LTM what's leica 's soul

Leica M39 screw mount bodies/lenses
Y

Yvon

Established
Local time
7:12 PM
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
54
Location
Singapore
View My Gallery
some day I was discussing leica digitals with my friend and he couldn't agree with my opinion: leica's digitalization was all for its survival. As a few hours before the conversation, I was in a camera shop chatting with an old guy who apparently was an experienced camera man. He talked about olympus' 4/3 system and something about how to keep part of the tradition alive, by sticking digital bodies with film age lenses as film is dying.
I'm kind of depressed about current situation. Leica has gradually made itself an icon of luxury instead of a photo gear. Look at the price! If one day we have to stop using leicas in our hands because there is no more film available, I think technically speaking that is the day that leica dies.
 
Possibly not ... Leica have proved that they are a company that can survive in the face of adversity and may just surprise us all. The company may be stubborn but it's not stupid IMO!
 
Anthropomorphizing a camera benefits neither the camera nor the photographer. It's easy to confuse tools themselves with the people who have used them. If the rangefinder camera had been a modern invention rather than the 35mm that started it all, the SLR would be legendary and imbued with the "soul" of all those famous photographers that made their names with a camera.

It's the same thing with digital vs film cameras. Film is as much a technology as digital is. There is inherently nothing good or bad about film or digital. Because neither has soul. It's the people that use them that have "soul." And people have been using film much longer than digital. Again, we confuse the tool with the tool user.

While it is a sound argument that Leica has priced itself out of being a tool for the "common man" (although it really never was from a price standpoint), the idea that Leica dies with film is, again, confusing its usefulness as a tool with the technology when it was created.

You seem to be saying that the fact that it used film, rather than the M Leica's rangefinder focusing system and compact size, and it's place in history, is what made it great. I think that's completely wrong. Most people born in the last 30 years would look at a Leica with it's manual rangefinder focusing and consider it a relic, certainly not as useful as their autofocus, autoexposure modern camera.

So in the end, I don't think it matters a bit whether it's film or an SD card that records the image, a Leica is what it has aways been.
 
It's not Film or digital that kills the "soul" of photography, it's mass production and consumption. Todays internet is flooded with millions and millions of photographs - good and bad - from mediocre photographers. People like Henry Cartier-Bresson would be rejected on stock photography sites today, because of noise and the subject matter out of focus. The man wouldn't stand a chance. Cameras - most of them mediocre - are produced and outdated on a daily basis. Mainstream photography has been reduced to an exercise of hunting for dead pixels.
More sensitive people that try to preserve the soul of photography - the geeks of old - gather in forums like this one.

An example: I was shooting a wedding and for some shots I pulled out my film Hasselblad. The bride was immediately outraged that I am shooting her most important day with an "outdated" camera. She wasn't satisfied until I put the Hasselblad away and pulled out the D700 again. I think it would have been even better if the D700 would have been pink!
THAT'S what photography has become to...

Herbert
 
The "error" in your assumption is that film is dying. Leica's soul is pretty much alive with or without film. I really love that I can utilize my wonderful M lenses with both film and digital cameras. The entrance to Leica photography is cheap if you consider to buy used film cameras. Further your system can be considered complete even if you limit yourself to two lenses only that will serve you your whole life. In this respect I consider Leica photography to be cheap in the long run.

Regards
Steve
 
"Soul" of a camera.

"Soul" of a camera.

i agree with Mr. Wilson. Cameras don't have a soul. Photographers sometimes do.

A camera, whether it is a Diana, a Leica, or the latest hypertechnology digital is a tool in the hands of the photographer. It is eminently possible to make trite photographs with a Leica, a fact which I have demonstrated to my satisfaction too many times. There is nothing unfair or inherently slothful in creating a splendid photograph using a camera with modern features, something that I have accomplished on rare occasions.

Classic Leica cameras and many of the recent new generation of limited production rangefinder cameras are exquisitely made, beautiful to behold, ludicrously expensive monuments to mechanical and optical precision that will not improve one's art one iota. They can be very desirable, but buy them for what they are, please.

It can be great fun using old technology when newer is available, for a variety of reasons. I have a copule of 1970's Triumph motorcycles which I love dearly. I also have a tee shirt with a big Triumph logo on it and the words "Turn an ordinary man into a mechanic". I have more than one old Triumph, because I find it useful to have one that actually runs on a given day. I don't consider these lovely old machines to be inherently superior to modern ones that go faster and are far more reliable. They are just right for me.

Cheers,
Dez
 
Yvon said:
some day I was discussing leica digitals with my friend and he couldn't agree with my opinion: leica's digitalization was all for its survival. As a few hours before the conversation, I was in a camera shop chatting with an old guy who apparently was an experienced camera man. He talked about olympus' 4/3 system and something about how to keep part of the tradition alive, by sticking digital bodies with film age lenses as film is dying.
I'm kind of depressed about current situation. Leica has gradually made itself an icon of luxury instead of a photo gear. Look at the price! If one day we have to stop using leicas in our hands because there is no more film available, I think technically speaking that is the day that leica dies.
Click to expand...

No, Leicas always were expensive luxuries. The big difference is that they haven't declined in price as some of their competitors have. Thus, although a Leica is now more expensive as compared with (say) a 1950s Nikon, I suspect it's surprisingly comparable with the 1930s price of a Leica if you price it in steaks, Mars bars, motor cars or houses.

There's also the point that Leicas remain desirable. In 1963 a new M2+Elmar was about 5% more expensive than a Contaflex Super B with f/2.8 Tessar (£131 instead of £126, or thereabouts). What are the two worth today? And why?

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Pickett Wilson said:
Anthropomorphizing a camera benefits neither the camera nor the photographer. It's easy to confuse tools themselves with the people who have used them. If the rangefinder camera had been a modern invention rather than the 35mm that started it all, the SLR would be legendary and imbued with the "soul" of all those famous photographers that made their names with a camera.

It's the same thing with digital vs film cameras. Film is as much a technology as digital is. There is inherently nothing good or bad about film or digital. Because neither has soul. It's the people that use them that have "soul." And people have been using film much longer than digital. Again, we confuse the tool with the tool user.

While it is a sound argument that Leica has priced itself out of being a tool for the "common man" (although it really never was from a price standpoint), the idea that Leica dies with film is, again, confusing its usefulness as a tool with the technology when it was created.

You seem to be saying that the fact that it used film, rather than the M Leica's rangefinder focusing system and compact size, and it's place in history, is what made it great. I think that's completely wrong. Most people born in the last 30 years would look at a Leica with it's manual rangefinder focusing and consider it a relic, certainly not as useful as their autofocus, autoexposure modern camera.

So in the end, I don't think it matters a bit whether it's film or an SD card that records the image, a Leica is what it has aways been.
Click to expand...

a bloody brilliant post!
 
Agreed that a machine has no "soul", whatever that may be. I'll only add that no photographer has a "soul" either, except when whatever he or she does have matches whatever a large enough number of viewers have.

Sug, the Rolleiflex was also once called a miniature.
 
Yvon said:
I was in a camera shop chatting with an old guy who apparently was an experienced camera man. He talked about olympus' 4/3 system and something about how to keep part of the tradition alive, by sticking digital bodies with film age lenses as film is dying.
Click to expand...

Film will only die if we let it die.

The experienced camera man may just want to sell you some digital stuff. 🙂
 
It's a false dilemma. Film won't die in the first place. When Marconi invented the wireless, he created a hell of a demand for wire. The emergence of the transistor amplifier was not the end for the vacuum tube. True, they make tubes now in Russia. (they always did; the Svetlana factory in St. Petersburg, for example, was already there in the heyday of vacuum tubes. It's still there.) Efke, in Croatia, is making the films that Agfa and Adox quit making. Kodak recently put in a new coating plant for film. And Kodak surprised all the number-crunchers with a strong financial showing recently.

Not to worry. there will be film.
 
Dear Fred,

No, I deliiberately chose Nikkorex. Nikkormats were/are far better built cameras than most 'Nikons' sold today (I have a couple of Nikkormats). I also have a Nikkorex F, which is why I chose the parallel. Actually it works fine, apart from the shutter sounding like a musket shot.

Didn't the Nikkorex precede the Nikkormat? I'm pretty sure it did, so the Nikkorex was the second line at first.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
archeophoto said:
...People like Henry Cartier-Bresson would be rejected on stock photography sites today, because of noise and the subject matter out of focus. The man wouldn't stand a chance. ...
Click to expand...

I assume, the most important reason for rejecting photos of HCB et al would be just the content. Which producer of advertisements or which news agency has a demand for such photos today? The contents of a stock photography archive is mainly demand driven. I don't think that Salgado sells a lot of photos via stock photo agencies. He has to find financial sponsors and then do his projects.
 
archeophoto said:
...
An example: I was shooting a wedding and for some shots I pulled out my film Hasselblad. The bride was immediately outraged that I am shooting her most important day with an "outdated" camera. She wasn't satisfied until I put the Hasselblad away and pulled out the D700 again. I think it would have been even better if the D700 would have been pink!
THAT'S what photography has become to...
Click to expand...

It's a shame that you write this about your clients. If a client demands digital photos you should give him digital photos. You have a problem with that? Then you probably should avoid offering a service. Or you should only offer analog photography.
 
archeophoto said:
It's not Film or digital that kills the "soul" of photography, it's mass production and consumption. Todays internet is flooded with millions and millions of photographs - good and bad - from mediocre photographers. People like Henry Cartier-Bresson would be rejected on stock photography sites today, because of noise and the subject matter out of focus. The man wouldn't stand a chance. Cameras - most of them mediocre - are produced and outdated on a daily basis. Mainstream photography has been reduced to an exercise of hunting for dead pixels.
More sensitive people that try to preserve the soul of photography - the geeks of old - gather in forums like this one.

An example: I was shooting a wedding and for some shots I pulled out my film Hasselblad. The bride was immediately outraged that I am shooting her most important day with an "outdated" camera. She wasn't satisfied until I put the Hasselblad away and pulled out the D700 again. I think it would have been even better if the D700 would have been pink!
THAT'S what photography has become to...

Herbert
Click to expand...

Herbert,

Utter brilliant post ! I was laughing for a good 10 minutes about your Hasselblad / D700 post.

And your post about HCB is so true as well.. he would be rejected from all photo agencies and people would rate negatives in photo.net and pbase.com of his photos saying "man, focus better" or "utterly unsharp photo" ...

Its sad but true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom