Bill Pierce
Well-known
In the last thread, Farlymac said, “You know, Bill, there is a awful lot of good camera gear out there that has just as good a reputation as Leica, so don’t feel bad about slumming around with a Voigtlander lens.”
This set me to thinking about the position that digital rangefinder cameras have today, at least for me. When I was a working stiff that traveled long distances with film Leicas, I had a lot of them - 3 around my neck, a couple of backups against theft or breakdown in the hotel safe and at least one out for a CLA (clean, lubricate, and adjust).
Today I have one that I use for family snaps and street photography. The relative simplicity of the controls (and the years I have been using them) let me concentrate on an active, changing subject, not the camera. Getting the focusing out of the way and watching for a somewhat decisive moment with a finder that lets me see what is happening outside the frame helps too.
But the small size, accurate focus with wide angle and normal focal lengths and outstanding image quality for the format size are now equalled by a number of equally mirrorless digitals which are more suited to the full range of lenses including long lenses and zooms, may have many more operating features and often have a lower price.
I am lucky. Selling old film Leicas raises money for a new digital Leica, And old lenses work on new bodies. But no question about it, I think the Leica is a specialty camera for pictures that are shot selectively, not in bursts, shot where focus is a set it and forget it operation, not something that you deal with constantly or continuously, shot with relatively normal lenses not extreme wide or long and most of all shot with a finder that does very little to preview the final image, but gives you a very clear and detailed look at what is in front of the camera. Fortunately for me, I love that kind of photography.
I have nine “professional” cameras that I use most often to take pictures for other people. Seven of them could easily do the same pictures for which I use a Leica. Technically the pictures would be just as good or even better. But the simplicity of the Leica and the lack of a huge range of menu and control options forces me to concentrate on the subject. I like that. Too bad simplicity costs so much more than complexity.
Your thoughts?
This set me to thinking about the position that digital rangefinder cameras have today, at least for me. When I was a working stiff that traveled long distances with film Leicas, I had a lot of them - 3 around my neck, a couple of backups against theft or breakdown in the hotel safe and at least one out for a CLA (clean, lubricate, and adjust).
Today I have one that I use for family snaps and street photography. The relative simplicity of the controls (and the years I have been using them) let me concentrate on an active, changing subject, not the camera. Getting the focusing out of the way and watching for a somewhat decisive moment with a finder that lets me see what is happening outside the frame helps too.
But the small size, accurate focus with wide angle and normal focal lengths and outstanding image quality for the format size are now equalled by a number of equally mirrorless digitals which are more suited to the full range of lenses including long lenses and zooms, may have many more operating features and often have a lower price.
I am lucky. Selling old film Leicas raises money for a new digital Leica, And old lenses work on new bodies. But no question about it, I think the Leica is a specialty camera for pictures that are shot selectively, not in bursts, shot where focus is a set it and forget it operation, not something that you deal with constantly or continuously, shot with relatively normal lenses not extreme wide or long and most of all shot with a finder that does very little to preview the final image, but gives you a very clear and detailed look at what is in front of the camera. Fortunately for me, I love that kind of photography.
I have nine “professional” cameras that I use most often to take pictures for other people. Seven of them could easily do the same pictures for which I use a Leica. Technically the pictures would be just as good or even better. But the simplicity of the Leica and the lack of a huge range of menu and control options forces me to concentrate on the subject. I like that. Too bad simplicity costs so much more than complexity.
Your thoughts?
Cascadilla
Well-known
I use DSLRs for professional work and always use them with manual focusing and manual exposure. I find live view to be as close to my beloved 4x5's as I can expect in the digital era, and it makes up in part for the poor focusing with screens/viewfinders of DSLRs. For fun I shoot Contax III and IIIa with film and Zeiss lenses. I agree with you about simplicity--it is ironic that it is so expensive, but given the nature of electronics and marketing it isn't surprising.
emraphoto
Veteran
The camera doesn’t have to be a Leica nor expensive to achieve simplicity. For whatever reasons I am similar in that I am far more interested in the subject and/or final image than cameras or the skills wrapped up in them. Can I shoot sunny 16? Any day of the week. Can I soup tri-x in a hotel sink? Sure can. These days however, I set a Ricoh GR on auto iso amd ‘professional mode’ then press the button. Couldn’t be simpler really and not particularly expensive.
peterm1
Veteran
Too bad simplicity costs so much more than complexity.
Your thoughts?
It pretty well all comes down to the economics of production and markets. As Henry Ford discovered, if you can standardize your products and churn them out using a production line it is possible to produce good products cheaper for mass markets. But you have to do it in the hundreds of thousands or millions to achieve these economies and make them work for you.
But how many people today want "simple non complex cameras" even if they were relatively cheap to buy compared with alternatives. Not many. And also, these cameras which are non complex to you (you have been doing all your life) place a premium on the user having skills not possessed by many users. So they are also actually quite complex to use for someone who knows "zip" about photography and who really just wants to push the shutter button and know they will get a good image without having to know anything at all about apertures, shutter speed, depth of field etc etc. And, I hazard a guess that 90% of photographers do what I do most of the time - set the camera on P mode (or in my case A mode) and not bother with the 10 pages of options in the camera's settings menu.
So the market for "simple" cameras (of the Leica M type) is inherently small.
A small market means the high volume production line method does not quite work for this market segment in the same way it does for other segments. And for makers it is therefore far better to tap another part of the market - the segment with people who want to fiddle with old style dials and so forth and who are willing to buy the best and who can afford it. This inevitably means not making the camera cheap to compete with the mass market. It means making it more exclusive for an inherently smaller part of the market. And that inevitably means each unit has to be more expensive to cover its costs.
Some people (usually not Leica shooters) say using Leica is about snobbery and looking good to other people. There is I suppose a certain "snob" appeal to using a Leica but I wonder if this really explains more than a tiny part of its appeal. I don't think it does - the Leica snob appeal (if it exists at all) only appeals to a few people who (a) know what a Leica is and (b) give a damn. If the Leica snob appeal exists at all it is better defined not as snobbery but as the personal enjoyment that comes from working for, buying and using something that is a delight to use. And this is more about personal satisfaction and enjoyment - not about how others think.
Your thoughts?
It pretty well all comes down to the economics of production and markets. As Henry Ford discovered, if you can standardize your products and churn them out using a production line it is possible to produce good products cheaper for mass markets. But you have to do it in the hundreds of thousands or millions to achieve these economies and make them work for you.
But how many people today want "simple non complex cameras" even if they were relatively cheap to buy compared with alternatives. Not many. And also, these cameras which are non complex to you (you have been doing all your life) place a premium on the user having skills not possessed by many users. So they are also actually quite complex to use for someone who knows "zip" about photography and who really just wants to push the shutter button and know they will get a good image without having to know anything at all about apertures, shutter speed, depth of field etc etc. And, I hazard a guess that 90% of photographers do what I do most of the time - set the camera on P mode (or in my case A mode) and not bother with the 10 pages of options in the camera's settings menu.
So the market for "simple" cameras (of the Leica M type) is inherently small.
A small market means the high volume production line method does not quite work for this market segment in the same way it does for other segments. And for makers it is therefore far better to tap another part of the market - the segment with people who want to fiddle with old style dials and so forth and who are willing to buy the best and who can afford it. This inevitably means not making the camera cheap to compete with the mass market. It means making it more exclusive for an inherently smaller part of the market. And that inevitably means each unit has to be more expensive to cover its costs.
Some people (usually not Leica shooters) say using Leica is about snobbery and looking good to other people. There is I suppose a certain "snob" appeal to using a Leica but I wonder if this really explains more than a tiny part of its appeal. I don't think it does - the Leica snob appeal (if it exists at all) only appeals to a few people who (a) know what a Leica is and (b) give a damn. If the Leica snob appeal exists at all it is better defined not as snobbery but as the personal enjoyment that comes from working for, buying and using something that is a delight to use. And this is more about personal satisfaction and enjoyment - not about how others think.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Outside of frames, normal lenses, yep, makes sense. Live view, EVF, doesn't. It is not liv(f)e.
Yep. If film Leica is still in regular (not once in a while roll) use it needs backup.
"... good reputation as Leica" is kinda lol these days. The only photog I know who is still using digital Leica RF professionally has backup of the backup.
I have Canon DSLR which was in use by one professional, then after new shutter was sold to another professional and after it came to our home and I took pictures with it . Wow! They looked professional
. And I don't need backup for it.
But Leica RF are nice to go out, go on the trip with. They make you feel nice. While they works...
Yep. If film Leica is still in regular (not once in a while roll) use it needs backup.
"... good reputation as Leica" is kinda lol these days. The only photog I know who is still using digital Leica RF professionally has backup of the backup.
I have Canon DSLR which was in use by one professional, then after new shutter was sold to another professional and after it came to our home and I took pictures with it . Wow! They looked professional
. And I don't need backup for it. But Leica RF are nice to go out, go on the trip with. They make you feel nice. While they works...
ellisson
Well-known
Many people prefer that simplicity of an RF camera such as the Leica and others that lack a huge range of menu functions so that they can better concentrate their vision and thoughts on the subject or openness to subjects.
When I am in the "zone" shooting, which I find easiest with menu-poor cameras, I capture more of the "decisive moments": Not external actions or fleeting moments, but internal perceptions of seeing something differently from what I may have assumed, expected, or never before noticed.
When I am in the "zone" shooting, which I find easiest with menu-poor cameras, I capture more of the "decisive moments": Not external actions or fleeting moments, but internal perceptions of seeing something differently from what I may have assumed, expected, or never before noticed.
nickthetasmaniac
Veteran
I don't have many thoughts, but I am reminded of Paul Rand's observation that 'Design is so simple, that's why it's so complicated.'
robert blu
quiet photographer
I'm lucky to be a pure passionate amateur...
No need to take photos which are not "my style". And for my style of shooting leica is the ideal tool for the reasons you just mentioned.
There is a cost, a real high cost for this. But I do not drive expensive cars or motorcycles, I do not wear expensive hand made watches, I do not eat in exclusive restaurants...
And more important I do not change camera each six months
robert
leicapixie
Well-known
Leica RF is really a simple camera, to use to load (film) and a delight to work..
I taught my daughter, a child then, to use the RF in 30 secs..
I showed two fingers then one while blocking main viewfinder so rf only seen.
Loading a film M2,M3 is so easy. I also get more frames..
Guessing the light, with a Kodak paper guide as was packed with film..
My daughter does occasional pro-work but uses Nikon Digital.
I used SLR for nearly all my Fashion and Advertising work.
My M3 is now 52 years in service..my favorite camera..
Could other cameras and lenses equal or surpass?
Yes! But it wouldn't be as much fun..
I taught my daughter, a child then, to use the RF in 30 secs..
I showed two fingers then one while blocking main viewfinder so rf only seen.
Loading a film M2,M3 is so easy. I also get more frames..
Guessing the light, with a Kodak paper guide as was packed with film..
My daughter does occasional pro-work but uses Nikon Digital.
I used SLR for nearly all my Fashion and Advertising work.
My M3 is now 52 years in service..my favorite camera..
Could other cameras and lenses equal or surpass?
Yes! But it wouldn't be as much fun..
willie_901
Veteran
It is complicated to figure out how to select menu options and features that enable simple digital camera usage. This takes time and patience. It is tedious.
One that task is completed, using many digital cameras simply is not complicated. One can "concentrate on an active, changing subject, not the camera". Now, inability to "concentrate on the subject" is not the camera's fault.
With FUJIFILM X-100 and, or X-Pro variants in OVF mode one can even "[watch] for a somewhat decisive moment with a finder that lets [you] see what is happening outside the frame".
One that task is completed, using many digital cameras simply is not complicated. One can "concentrate on an active, changing subject, not the camera". Now, inability to "concentrate on the subject" is not the camera's fault.
With FUJIFILM X-100 and, or X-Pro variants in OVF mode one can even "[watch] for a somewhat decisive moment with a finder that lets [you] see what is happening outside the frame".
lynnb
Veteran
Simplicity doesn't necessarily cost more than complexity - a IIIc can be had cheaply, along with an I-61 and some Jupiters.. or a film CL or manual Nikon or OM or whatever, and some primes. I enjoy simplicity too, and the mind exercises it requires. Nice to keep the brain cells active! However I think some digital advancements are worth the money, like Sony's eye-detect AF, which by all accounts is a game-changer. I see that as a more attractive proposition than a digital Leica for social and street photography.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Leica achieves simplicity by making all the decisions for you. You can pay $5000 extra for that or achieve the same result with other cameras by simply accepting the default menu choices and leaving them there. I have only changed one menu item on my camera in the last year, and that because I began shooting with studio flash. Honestly, I have no idea why people are constantly in their menus. Quit futzing around with your camera and make photographs.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I agree that as I age, simplicity is becoming more and more a way of life. I think I'd also throw "familiarity" into that equation. I didn't start out with rangefinder cameras, but with SLR's. For many years, it was an SLR and small primes.
Now that I'm shooting less for others and more for myself, I find my constant companion is a full frame mirrorless (Nikon Z6 set to aperture priority) and a small collection of primes. Surprisingly, they're old rangefinder primes (as I've always believed a rangefinder prime was optically superior to an SLR prime, that whole "rear element closer to the negative" thing). And I'm surprised at how many shooting situations, where I always thought I needed the big DSLR and the big zooms, I can now handle no problem with the little mirrorless and the little primes.
And I'm having fun making images again. Maybe that's the whole point.
Best,
-Tim
Now that I'm shooting less for others and more for myself, I find my constant companion is a full frame mirrorless (Nikon Z6 set to aperture priority) and a small collection of primes. Surprisingly, they're old rangefinder primes (as I've always believed a rangefinder prime was optically superior to an SLR prime, that whole "rear element closer to the negative" thing). And I'm surprised at how many shooting situations, where I always thought I needed the big DSLR and the big zooms, I can now handle no problem with the little mirrorless and the little primes.
And I'm having fun making images again. Maybe that's the whole point.
Best,
-Tim
For me, Fuji has everything I liked about the Leica with everything I like about modern mirrorless.
robert blu
quiet photographer
Yes, of course we can use a camera with many menu options in a simple way, after having spent some time in setting up as we desire or just simply learn to live with the default options.
The problem arises when for accident, mistake or another undesired reason we hit a button we shouldn't have touched and change some settings and the camera start no to make what we desire/need...
My wife's D-109 is a nightmare when this happens, and it happens...
robert
The problem arises when for accident, mistake or another undesired reason we hit a button we shouldn't have touched and change some settings and the camera start no to make what we desire/need...
My wife's D-109 is a nightmare when this happens, and it happens...
robert
charjohncarter
Veteran
I shoot my DSLR like a box camera. Although it does change settings automatically I don't know it. My DSLR allows me to set my aperture on the lens which I like and then shutter is auto set along with the focus.
This week I'll go to an event and take flash shots: set aperture, let camera decide ambient light one under, have my Vivitar 2600-d flash (who knows when that was made) set on A2 auto. No thinking involved. I've done this with film AF bodies but I can't see the histogram.
You are right; life is easier for spray and pray (only not so much praying now).
This week I'll go to an event and take flash shots: set aperture, let camera decide ambient light one under, have my Vivitar 2600-d flash (who knows when that was made) set on A2 auto. No thinking involved. I've done this with film AF bodies but I can't see the histogram.
You are right; life is easier for spray and pray (only not so much praying now).
emraphoto
Veteran
That is indeed a bother. Never suffered it myself but surely it would get in the way.
JeffS7444
Well-known
Totally agree about the joys of simplicity and the mechanical focusing helicoid + depth of field scale on the lens barrel. But now that I can easily view my photos at 100% on the computer screen, is that accurate enough to please me today?
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
My three favorite cameras flow through opposite ends of the digital spectrum. An R-D1x, an M9, and a Fuji X-E3. The Fuji has all the bells and whistles that anyone should want but I shoot it just like the other two, manual with various Voigtlander lenses with an occasional Fuji lens when I feel lazy. Modern cameras can be used just as simply as the old stuff.
Dogman
Veteran
I feel the same way.
Simplicity is important to me. I have very basic needs when it comes to my camera usage. I like the philosophy Leica has about simplicity but I can simplify my Fuji cameras pretty well. Once I set the camera up to my preferences, I seldom have to delve into the menus.