Bill Pierce
Well-known
Erwin Puts has an interesting piece on his blog. In a world flooded with digital snapshots he asks why do we photograph and (to his readers) why do we take pictures with a Leica. It’s an interesting question. We already know that a lot of us here on the rangefinder forum are using other cameras than rangefinders. When it was first introduced, the Leica changed photography. When Canon, Nikon, Zeiss and Leica were all making rangefinders, there are strong arguments that the best built and engineered was the Leica. But today, especially for digital users rather than film, we have to ask not only does an extremely expensive rangefinder camera make sense, but does a rangefinder makes sense. There’s no clear cut answer. But Puts is presenting what is the beginning of an interesting thought process. I know it’s stupid, but somedays I want a new Leica M10 and other days I don’t. I would love for you to read the Puts article and give me your thoughts. I’m vacillating on what at least can be called an expensive decision. Here’s the link.
https://photo.imx.nl/blog/files/2f4bef1f1744597184edddf835f38b32-99.html
https://photo.imx.nl/blog/files/2f4bef1f1744597184edddf835f38b32-99.html
Fjäll
■̷̛̈́̉̓́̽&
The Leica M makes more sense to me than ever.
Well perhaps the newer cameras makes less sense than ever.
I only ever fiddle with the shutter speed when the light changes and the aperture when it's getting dark.
I'd be a happy camper using a Leika made in China built to the same standards for half the price.
The M9 has never been so relevant to me before.
Well perhaps the newer cameras makes less sense than ever.
I only ever fiddle with the shutter speed when the light changes and the aperture when it's getting dark.
I'd be a happy camper using a Leika made in China built to the same standards for half the price.
The M9 has never been so relevant to me before.
Dogman
Veteran
I often think of owning a Leica M10. 'Course I also sometimes dream of owning a Rolleiflex TLR or a Hasselblad. Owning pieces of the photographic legacy is attractive. Then I come back to the reality that my eyes are now 70 years old and focusing a manual lens is more guesswork than precision work.
I agree with Puts that computers and electronics have leveled the field. Today I see photography as being less dependent on the camera than ever before. We enjoy debating the merits of one camera over another and the finer points of different brands of lenses. But great photography is being done with everything. That's reality too.
I agree with Puts that computers and electronics have leveled the field. Today I see photography as being less dependent on the camera than ever before. We enjoy debating the merits of one camera over another and the finer points of different brands of lenses. But great photography is being done with everything. That's reality too.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Asking questions like this is like asking why people are driving Jags and Landies.
Sure they are not for uber drivers and pizza delivery.
I can't speak for others, just for myself. I'm not moneymaker on photos, I learned how to take pictures with FED-2 and film M is the same but just every way better, except service. My pictures just comes naturally. Nothing is in the way. No extra (useless) dials, no crapload of menus.
And then nobody like Leica could handle lens made in fifties or even thirties on digital M. And digital M is nothing different from film M.
Do tell me which manufacturer has film and digital camera exactly the same and old lenses supported? Nikon, I guess, but I can't handle SLRs and have it simply as pleasure.
Yes, old Nikon is like classic Toyota. It is old LandCruiser vs new Range Rover. One is driven by militants and by those who could die if it brakes in the middle on nowhere, others are Starbucks dwelvers and snobs cousine crawlers. And I think life of those who has to drive LandCruisers sucks. I'd rather run on bicycle (FED-2).
Yet, "Expensive" is wrong code to apply. M8 is not expensive now and it will works perfectly with 7 (seven) dollars 28 2.8 Industar-69 lens. M9(M-E) and even M240 are not terribly expensive and works perfectly with 9 (nine) dollars Industar-61 lens and well under 100 dollars Jupiter-12 and not very expensive Orion-15 (28mm).
Many claims how Sony is great for old lenses, but every time I check old RF lenses on Sony, I'm far from to be impressed. In fact, then I look how lens performs on digital body I exclude Sony from search. And FujiNoFilm is 1.5 cropper... Personally, I'm not impressed by their cameras then I see them. I'd rather repaint my M-E buttons letters
.
Aslo, personally, it is very hard to find alternative to film and digital M once you get used to them...
Sure they are not for uber drivers and pizza delivery.
I can't speak for others, just for myself. I'm not moneymaker on photos, I learned how to take pictures with FED-2 and film M is the same but just every way better, except service. My pictures just comes naturally. Nothing is in the way. No extra (useless) dials, no crapload of menus.
And then nobody like Leica could handle lens made in fifties or even thirties on digital M. And digital M is nothing different from film M.
Do tell me which manufacturer has film and digital camera exactly the same and old lenses supported? Nikon, I guess, but I can't handle SLRs and have it simply as pleasure.
Yes, old Nikon is like classic Toyota. It is old LandCruiser vs new Range Rover. One is driven by militants and by those who could die if it brakes in the middle on nowhere, others are Starbucks dwelvers and snobs cousine crawlers. And I think life of those who has to drive LandCruisers sucks. I'd rather run on bicycle (FED-2).
Yet, "Expensive" is wrong code to apply. M8 is not expensive now and it will works perfectly with 7 (seven) dollars 28 2.8 Industar-69 lens. M9(M-E) and even M240 are not terribly expensive and works perfectly with 9 (nine) dollars Industar-61 lens and well under 100 dollars Jupiter-12 and not very expensive Orion-15 (28mm).
Many claims how Sony is great for old lenses, but every time I check old RF lenses on Sony, I'm far from to be impressed. In fact, then I look how lens performs on digital body I exclude Sony from search. And FujiNoFilm is 1.5 cropper... Personally, I'm not impressed by their cameras then I see them. I'd rather repaint my M-E buttons letters
. Aslo, personally, it is very hard to find alternative to film and digital M once you get used to them...
PaulCooper
Established
It's all in the lenses. To me it doesn't make sense to put a mediocre lens on Leica body. However, the Leica body leaves a lot to be desired in terms of performance...
MCTuomey
Veteran
I think Leica M's strengths (simplicity, pleasure in use, excellent lenses) when weighed against its weaknesses (narrow range of uses, high cost of ownership) are less compelling than they used to be. I would have to accept the limitations of working within a narrow range of focal lengths and, at the same time, reconcile the high entry and service costs of digital M cameras. I can't do it, for what and how I shoot.
I haven't had an M body for over two years. I'm trying out a digital CL with a few M lenses I haven't let go. I've been enjoying and producing good work from a Q. But if I am realistic and push nostalgia aside, my Fuji gear can be far more flexible in use and is comparable in IQ, or at least close enough, at probably 1/4 to 1/3 the cost to own. Why Leica? I don't know. for what I do.
On the other hand, dedicating a lens like the Lux 50 or 35 or APO 50 to an M body, learning to use the combo to its strengths and within its limits, can produce great work and generate a lot of shooting pleasure. That may be the timeless element of M photography, undoubtedly attractive and peerlessly cool.
I haven't had an M body for over two years. I'm trying out a digital CL with a few M lenses I haven't let go. I've been enjoying and producing good work from a Q. But if I am realistic and push nostalgia aside, my Fuji gear can be far more flexible in use and is comparable in IQ, or at least close enough, at probably 1/4 to 1/3 the cost to own. Why Leica? I don't know. for what I do.
On the other hand, dedicating a lens like the Lux 50 or 35 or APO 50 to an M body, learning to use the combo to its strengths and within its limits, can produce great work and generate a lot of shooting pleasure. That may be the timeless element of M photography, undoubtedly attractive and peerlessly cool.
Ronald M
Veteran
The M10 is really like a film M. Handles the same or close. Leica lenses are better than my Nikon primes. Both have improved since Nikon F days. The gap is still there but perhaps smaller. Nikon reds are still orange, Leicas are not.
Now consider how the machine is used. In studio or family shoot in the woods or on the beach, the big Nikon 850 is no problem. Standard zoom of 24/70 is decent, but bigger than a soup can. Again no problem if all photogenic subject are within 500 feet of your transport. I can fix the reds, but not size and weight. You might have noticed Nikon pro digital will not fit in a standard Lowe Pro shoulder bag. That is a whole other issue.
On the plus side, Nikon lenses render skin better ( less accurate ) than Leica. Nice if you do weddings or school photography. I use my 24/120 and do little correction.
Auto focus is a game changer for some applications.
Leica M are are smallish with superb lenses sized to fit camera. Wonderful for travel.
The wonder king will be mirrorless, Leica SL. I get dizzy looking through one more than 10 seconds. $5000 soup can lenses, you must be kidding. But that is what you pay for auto focus and near perfect lenses.
I removed from storage my 90 Summicron pre ASPH and 135 tele Elmar. If you focus properly, the digital images are superb. New APO versions probably better.
We no longer have the mechanical perfection for old. But consider I have been collecting some Nikon F2`s cameras & FE2, FT, FTN. I think they are made to operate dry or with grease that does not harden as they are all smooth as silk. Last FT N cost me $34 last month.
I no longer do wet darkroom color, So my M6 serves me as will the film Nikons.
My advice is unless you have lots of spare coin, Leica does not offer much. Like costume vs real jewels.
Want a small travel camera, Nikon D750 or D500. 750 if you use wide to normal.
The 85, 105, 135 AIS are as good all the new zooms for practical purposes and with better micro contrast. Add the 24/70 for portraits in studio.
If you have a caddy, bigger Nikon DSLR are nice.
If you have old M lens collection, a lightly used M240 will be fine. Buy and sell for little loss if you are not happy.
For one who has both, I believe if you have to think about money, stay wilh Nikon or other popular brands.
If you are traveling and come across a beautiful landscape, use photo merge. My son did a 6 or 8 frame pano from a M8 and standard lens. It made a wonderful 20x36 print that hangs in an office.
Theft is always a consideration which is why I keep some older stuff around.
Now consider how the machine is used. In studio or family shoot in the woods or on the beach, the big Nikon 850 is no problem. Standard zoom of 24/70 is decent, but bigger than a soup can. Again no problem if all photogenic subject are within 500 feet of your transport. I can fix the reds, but not size and weight. You might have noticed Nikon pro digital will not fit in a standard Lowe Pro shoulder bag. That is a whole other issue.
On the plus side, Nikon lenses render skin better ( less accurate ) than Leica. Nice if you do weddings or school photography. I use my 24/120 and do little correction.
Auto focus is a game changer for some applications.
Leica M are are smallish with superb lenses sized to fit camera. Wonderful for travel.
The wonder king will be mirrorless, Leica SL. I get dizzy looking through one more than 10 seconds. $5000 soup can lenses, you must be kidding. But that is what you pay for auto focus and near perfect lenses.
I removed from storage my 90 Summicron pre ASPH and 135 tele Elmar. If you focus properly, the digital images are superb. New APO versions probably better.
We no longer have the mechanical perfection for old. But consider I have been collecting some Nikon F2`s cameras & FE2, FT, FTN. I think they are made to operate dry or with grease that does not harden as they are all smooth as silk. Last FT N cost me $34 last month.
I no longer do wet darkroom color, So my M6 serves me as will the film Nikons.
My advice is unless you have lots of spare coin, Leica does not offer much. Like costume vs real jewels.
Want a small travel camera, Nikon D750 or D500. 750 if you use wide to normal.
The 85, 105, 135 AIS are as good all the new zooms for practical purposes and with better micro contrast. Add the 24/70 for portraits in studio.
If you have a caddy, bigger Nikon DSLR are nice.
If you have old M lens collection, a lightly used M240 will be fine. Buy and sell for little loss if you are not happy.
For one who has both, I believe if you have to think about money, stay wilh Nikon or other popular brands.
If you are traveling and come across a beautiful landscape, use photo merge. My son did a 6 or 8 frame pano from a M8 and standard lens. It made a wonderful 20x36 print that hangs in an office.
Theft is always a consideration which is why I keep some older stuff around.
JeffS7444
Well-known
My views on Leica cameras have evolved over the years, but I think the beauty of the M-system is that it imposes a certain discipline upon the user:
System limitations: The 0.72x finder is really most comfortable with 35 and 50mm lenses IMO. Others, less so. And it doesn't accommodate zoom lenses at all. So the range of distractions is pretty limited unless one is seeking another 35 or 50mm lens.
Cost: I don't know about others, but the cost of the lenses and bodies meant that I built up my system slowly and carefully and tended to know each bit of equipment well.
Attitude: Feeling incredibly fortunate just to have a Leica M outfit is everything! Less likely to blame shortcomings on the hardware and more likely to look at improving one's craft.
But having said that, I got to wondering whether the same thoughtful, pared-back approach might not work just as well with other makes of equipment. And so far, the results have been
System limitations: The 0.72x finder is really most comfortable with 35 and 50mm lenses IMO. Others, less so. And it doesn't accommodate zoom lenses at all. So the range of distractions is pretty limited unless one is seeking another 35 or 50mm lens.
Cost: I don't know about others, but the cost of the lenses and bodies meant that I built up my system slowly and carefully and tended to know each bit of equipment well.
Attitude: Feeling incredibly fortunate just to have a Leica M outfit is everything! Less likely to blame shortcomings on the hardware and more likely to look at improving one's craft.
But having said that, I got to wondering whether the same thoughtful, pared-back approach might not work just as well with other makes of equipment. And so far, the results have been
x-ray
Veteran
After buying a new M9 it cured me of ever wanting to buy a new Leica product again especially a digital product. Nearly half of the time I owned it lenses and or body we're in for repairs of which none were for a corroded sensor.
I don't know what system you used in film and digital but I started using Leica and Nikon from the beginning of my career fifty years ago. Nikon especially has excellent pro service with NPS and even consumer service as does Canon with CPS. Leica was good because they depended on the pro market to keep them alive. I'm afraid I've become accustomed to a professionally run repair service and unfortunately Leica doesn't have that unless you're a dentist.
The short story is that I had so many problems with my equipment and getting it serviced by Leica I had to threaten a lawsuit before they would replace a defective 90 apo lens. You might feel different but I'm not going to pay that kind of money and take that kind of abuse again. I've got to say that one of the best feelings in my life was getting rid of that equipment.
I don't know what system you used in film and digital but I started using Leica and Nikon from the beginning of my career fifty years ago. Nikon especially has excellent pro service with NPS and even consumer service as does Canon with CPS. Leica was good because they depended on the pro market to keep them alive. I'm afraid I've become accustomed to a professionally run repair service and unfortunately Leica doesn't have that unless you're a dentist.
The short story is that I had so many problems with my equipment and getting it serviced by Leica I had to threaten a lawsuit before they would replace a defective 90 apo lens. You might feel different but I'm not going to pay that kind of money and take that kind of abuse again. I've got to say that one of the best feelings in my life was getting rid of that equipment.
Huss
Veteran
It depends what you mean by a mediocre lens. Different lenses give different looks. A 'perfect' clinical lens may not be what a certain project (or image) needs to get the result the photographer wants.
Timmyjoe
Veteran
Interesting article Bill, thanks for the link.
Best of luck with your Leica M10 decision. Luckily I can't afford one, so no decision necessary. Although I know it's fun looking forward to things.
Being of an age where I grew up on LIFE magazine with its photography of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement, what I look forward to always ends up revolving around shooting film, in particular B&W film. My limited love of color is satisfied by a Leica M9, (simply because I find the sensor renders as close as any to the Ektachrome and Kodachrome I can no longer purchase or shoot). The current line of Leica digital cameras with their CMOS sensors leaves me kind of cold.
This weekend my nephew is getting married. I have a tradition of shooting at my niece's and nephew's weddings. They always have a pro photographer there with big DSLR's and lights, and usually assistants. But I quietly move through the guests with my little Nikon S2 rangefinder, making portraits of parents, cousins, aunts and uncles, bridal parties and the like. It gives me joy to create something for the bride and groom that seems more lasting than the 1's & 0's of a digital file.
I hear what Mr. Puts is saying about the mechanical quality of the little Leica rangefinder film cameras. I guess I'm stuck in the 1960's.
Best,
-Tim
Best of luck with your Leica M10 decision. Luckily I can't afford one, so no decision necessary. Although I know it's fun looking forward to things.
Being of an age where I grew up on LIFE magazine with its photography of the Vietnam War and the Civil Rights Movement, what I look forward to always ends up revolving around shooting film, in particular B&W film. My limited love of color is satisfied by a Leica M9, (simply because I find the sensor renders as close as any to the Ektachrome and Kodachrome I can no longer purchase or shoot). The current line of Leica digital cameras with their CMOS sensors leaves me kind of cold.
This weekend my nephew is getting married. I have a tradition of shooting at my niece's and nephew's weddings. They always have a pro photographer there with big DSLR's and lights, and usually assistants. But I quietly move through the guests with my little Nikon S2 rangefinder, making portraits of parents, cousins, aunts and uncles, bridal parties and the like. It gives me joy to create something for the bride and groom that seems more lasting than the 1's & 0's of a digital file.
I hear what Mr. Puts is saying about the mechanical quality of the little Leica rangefinder film cameras. I guess I'm stuck in the 1960's.
Best,
-Tim
icebear
Veteran
Besides all the arguments already mentioned above, the crucial thing is I like to use my Leica MM.
I don't have to consult a 400p. manual because some computer programmer designed a menu lay out
and the computer he came up with can just by chance take pictures as well.
OK exaggerating a tiny bit here.
A Leica digital M doesn't get in the way of seeing the image first and then capturing the image the way I want to.
It's me and not some auto everything scene mode algorithm that has a 95% chance of a usable shot.
I don't have to consult a 400p. manual because some computer programmer designed a menu lay out
and the computer he came up with can just by chance take pictures as well.
OK exaggerating a tiny bit here.
A Leica digital M doesn't get in the way of seeing the image first and then capturing the image the way I want to.
It's me and not some auto everything scene mode algorithm that has a 95% chance of a usable shot.
cz23
-
It's a timely question for me because I'm about the get a windfall that would allow an M10 and have been wrestling with the decision. Some days I think, "What the heck, go for it." Other days I think, "$7.2K! Are you out of your mind?"
As usual, Puts produces a lot of words that don't say a lot. He usually gets around to Leicas excelling at the "snapshot aesthetic." I like that concept. But I think my X100F does that style even better, and the GR better still. There's just something about the M experience that's hard to beat.
Bill, be sure to let us know what you decide.
John
As usual, Puts produces a lot of words that don't say a lot. He usually gets around to Leicas excelling at the "snapshot aesthetic." I like that concept. But I think my X100F does that style even better, and the GR better still. There's just something about the M experience that's hard to beat.
Bill, be sure to let us know what you decide.
John
I'm a former Leica M film and digital user. They have been some of the most pleasurable cameras I have ever used. I even enjoyed the M8 and M9 and the M8 went for repair twice. Some of my favorite cameras ever have been Leicas: M6, M9, X1, Minilux, etc. However, I have moved on for a few reasons. (1) I no longer like to use manual focus for the way I photograph. (2) The digital M cameras are just too expensive for me... even if I can afford one, I cannot afford to replace it. I live in Chile and reliance on insurance is not the same as in the US. Cameras are targets here. (3) There are better options in 2018 (for my wants / needs) i.e. Fujifilm... cheaper and with AF and legacy controls.
To me, the Leica M is a true luxury camera now. Not exactly reliable, or the best choice, in all situations, but super fun and pleasurable to use.
To me, the Leica M is a true luxury camera now. Not exactly reliable, or the best choice, in all situations, but super fun and pleasurable to use.
samuelphoto
Established
I've used all kinds of cameras over the years including every M camera made (except the M5) up to the M9. Some, like SLRs, are good at a lot of things, some only at a few, but like Leica, do those few things very well. Would I use a M system in a studio? Not unless a client asked, which they never did. Documenting an event, absolutely! It all depends what you are artistically trying to accomplish and what tool works best for you.
There's a fun thread running now called "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." Even in sports or landscapes, technical perfection is not always the best approach (unless you are Tom Mangelsen, for example). IMHO, content almost always trumps technical perfection (think Robert Capa's D-day images). How many millions of technically perfect but boring images are produced every day (I have certainly added my share)?
While the modern M system is surely technically wonderful, it does not create content for me, and certainly not to justify the exorbitant cost. In fact, I still prefer the simplicity and immediacy of my M film cameras and my little elmarit, summaron and summicron lenses. Oh, and my 40-year old OM film system still makes great images too. So can cheap Jupiter lenses. The list can go on...
There is no one right answer, it is what works best for the artist in terms of performance and cost, "performance" being a VERY subjective term that is context and task dependent.
There's a fun thread running now called "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." Even in sports or landscapes, technical perfection is not always the best approach (unless you are Tom Mangelsen, for example). IMHO, content almost always trumps technical perfection (think Robert Capa's D-day images). How many millions of technically perfect but boring images are produced every day (I have certainly added my share)?
While the modern M system is surely technically wonderful, it does not create content for me, and certainly not to justify the exorbitant cost. In fact, I still prefer the simplicity and immediacy of my M film cameras and my little elmarit, summaron and summicron lenses. Oh, and my 40-year old OM film system still makes great images too. So can cheap Jupiter lenses. The list can go on...
There is no one right answer, it is what works best for the artist in terms of performance and cost, "performance" being a VERY subjective term that is context and task dependent.
farlymac
PF McFarland
Well, expensive is a relative term, Bill. If you are already vested in the Leica system (which you are), then it's just adding another body. You don't have to get any new lenses for it, unless you tend to fastidiously buy every new version that Leica produces.
To me the problem of expense comes with the realization that the upper end camera systems, no matter the manufacturer, have a lot of proprietary do-dads that you can't get anywhere else, such as hoods, filters, and finders for the special lenses. So while one may find a bargain on a camera body, the cheapest OEM lens one can find could easily push three times the price of the bargain camera.
But if you have resisted the siren song, and have waited for Leica to finally get their digital act together, a new M-10 wouldn't be a bad choice. Though maybe you would be happier with a good used M-D. No rear screen, no menus, no movie mode. Just a nice, plain camera. And you'd save some money too. Maybe. But it's a digital camera, so it has to come down in resale value.
I once knew a guy who would just rave about his Leica, and how he just needed one body, and three lenses. But when he told me about his $200 lens hood, I looked at him and said "So you only need one camera and three lenses because after all that you're totally tapped out, and couldn't afford another one anyway."
At least that would have been my modus operandi if I had sunk all my money on Leicas. I never would have been able to experience other formats from 16mm to 4x5. And after all that, I still wanted a Leica, and it has nothing to do with the mystique of the brand. It's that famous M mount. So I finally found a Leica camera with a couple of lenses at a decent price, and I can say I am not disappointed. Granted, it's a CL with the 40 and 90, but I got some Voigtlander wide-angles to go with it, and am now contemplating a Zeiss Ikon ZM for something a little more to my liking, size wise. Unless I can find a really good deal on an M7.
You see, it's all relative.
PF
To me the problem of expense comes with the realization that the upper end camera systems, no matter the manufacturer, have a lot of proprietary do-dads that you can't get anywhere else, such as hoods, filters, and finders for the special lenses. So while one may find a bargain on a camera body, the cheapest OEM lens one can find could easily push three times the price of the bargain camera.
But if you have resisted the siren song, and have waited for Leica to finally get their digital act together, a new M-10 wouldn't be a bad choice. Though maybe you would be happier with a good used M-D. No rear screen, no menus, no movie mode. Just a nice, plain camera. And you'd save some money too. Maybe. But it's a digital camera, so it has to come down in resale value.
I once knew a guy who would just rave about his Leica, and how he just needed one body, and three lenses. But when he told me about his $200 lens hood, I looked at him and said "So you only need one camera and three lenses because after all that you're totally tapped out, and couldn't afford another one anyway."
At least that would have been my modus operandi if I had sunk all my money on Leicas. I never would have been able to experience other formats from 16mm to 4x5. And after all that, I still wanted a Leica, and it has nothing to do with the mystique of the brand. It's that famous M mount. So I finally found a Leica camera with a couple of lenses at a decent price, and I can say I am not disappointed. Granted, it's a CL with the 40 and 90, but I got some Voigtlander wide-angles to go with it, and am now contemplating a Zeiss Ikon ZM for something a little more to my liking, size wise. Unless I can find a really good deal on an M7.
You see, it's all relative.
PF
David Hughes
David Hughes
Thinking about the poor value you get from those expensive lens hoods & the Chinese ones makes me wonder if the same thoughts should be applied to the bodies and lenses and so on.
Worse still, I can remember when lens hoods were simple devices you just screwed into the filter ring
Regards, David
Worse still, I can remember when lens hoods were simple devices you just screwed into the filter ring
Regards, David
Michael Markey
Veteran
shimokita
白黒
Read the article... and agree that Puts is "presenting what is the beginning of an interesting thought process". I agree to the "beginning of" aspect... I found his ending paragraph a tad bit weak... yes - answers based on an expanded discussion...
In case Puts hasn't noticed it's not only photography, the written word both journalistically and fictionally (somewhat overlapping these days) is likewise digitized... on any given night take a look at the Late Night talk shows... the source of news for many.
A friend of mine teaches a university level course in photography and I had a chance to see one of the projects on self photography... was blown away by the creative results... "thou shalt not revere the old for the old's sake. If it's new and it fits, use it." - source footnotes to the book: "Wabe-Sabi for Artists, Designers, Poets & Philosophers" by Leonard Koren
In case Puts hasn't noticed it's not only photography, the written word both journalistically and fictionally (somewhat overlapping these days) is likewise digitized... on any given night take a look at the Late Night talk shows... the source of news for many.
A friend of mine teaches a university level course in photography and I had a chance to see one of the projects on self photography... was blown away by the creative results... "thou shalt not revere the old for the old's sake. If it's new and it fits, use it." - source footnotes to the book: "Wabe-Sabi for Artists, Designers, Poets & Philosophers" by Leonard Koren
RichC
Well-known
This.
I owned an M8 and used an M9. A Leica digital camera promises the earth but delivers mediocrity - unreliable, poor performance, outdated and flawed technology, horrible ergonomics, glacial repair time, all for an eye-watering price! Never again! I’ve moved on to cameras that actually work!
I’d be less scathing if it lived up to expectations. Instead, it’s a failure - I see the thread on “sensor corrosion” is still going strong on RFF!
In my case, Leica lied to me, going beyond acceptable marketing speak (“an upgradable camera”), I had sensor and shutter faults, and the camera randomly locked up (just like a crashed computer, the fix was to cut the power by removing and replacing the battery) - Leica took months to repair it, and it still froze solid in multi-shot mode till the day I sold it!
And to this day Leica persists in bizarre choices confirming it’s a camera designed as a toy for rich people and dilettantes, rather than as tool for serious photographers. For example, what’s with stupid bottom cover? It makes it impossible to use on a tripod, as you can’t get to the battery or SD card without moving the camera! And machined brass - what’s that about? Why not use cheaper and stronger die-cast alloy like everyone else? These two design choices made sense back in film days but not today! I could go on ripping the Leica M design apart as not fit for purpose...
Someone likened the digital Leica M to a sports car. Nothing wrong with that, except they chose the wrong make. It’s nothing like a Porsche - which has performance and reliability. It’s more like buying something cooked up in a shed by half a dozen folk with not enough money or experience - think Lotus in the 1970s (terrible cars!).
I can understand people liking simplicity or an optical rangefinder, but Leica did not create the Leica M for photographers wanting the Leica heritage in digital form. Unfortunately, that market isn’t big enough. Instead, Leica created a luxury product that is more fashion statement. And so the camera is compromised when used for what should be it’s raison d’etre: taking pictures.
No other camera I’ve used has been so unreliable or awkward to use. Not even the Epson R-D1 cobbled together from a Cosina Bessa film rangefinder, a Nikon dSLR and Seiko watch dials (I owned this for 2 years, and the only problem I had was the rangefinder needing occasional adjustment). However, Epson produced this camera as a concept project, not to make a profit, so they could design it without compromise. I’d buy an “R-D2” like a shot in the unlikely event it appears! (The only reason I sold the R-D1 was too few MP - I need at least 20 MP.)