Another dreaded ‘should I buy a Leica’ thread

[tomasis]

IT is good start with R2a. Since you get a Bessa, get away from the forum otherwise you get stuck here by GAS attack and spend more for lenses than you imagined or could 😀 As it happens me now, lol.

It would be huge step from FSU to R2a. CV lenses are very good for its price so have fun with them too. I bought a used M3 for 400 euros at beat up condition. It is not expensive either. Depending how much budget you are willing to put. I'm using Zorki btw and it is hard to use slow shutter times while taking stable pictures so the FSU got act as wideangle camera with 25mm CV lens and it works well due its small cute size 🙂

 

[x-ray]

I wish carrying a rangefinder made me inconspicuous, but it is always the opposite for me. I was at the kickoff party for a gallery show yesterday. Lots of people and crowded, but nobody paid me the least attention while I was shooting the 5D with the 24-70 2.8. But the minute I pulled out the M5, people started coming up to me and asking about it, telling me their dad had one...blah, blah, blah.

Folks are supposed to ignore you with a Leica because they think it's just an old camera. Never worked for me! 🙂

Leicas draw attention because they look different than what people are used to seeing. Does anyone pay any attention to someone shooting with a cell phone camera or a P&S? No because it's a common everyday and every place you go event. If you want stealth shooting the best way is a high quality P&S like on of the canon G series or the upper end P&S Fuji pocket cameras.

 

[tomasis]

I wish carrying a rangefinder made me inconspicuous, but it is always the opposite for me. I was at the kickoff party for a gallery show yesterday. Lots of people and crowded, but nobody paid me the least attention while I was shooting the 5D with the 24-70 2.8. But the minute I pulled out the M5, people started coming up to me and asking about it, telling me their dad had one...blah, blah, blah.

Folks are supposed to ignore you with a Leica because they think it's just an old camera. Never worked for me! 🙂

Bessa might work in that case 🙂 or why not spray with can over whole camera so it become black ugly like some burned ashes 🙂 I imagine such things happens when there are old people. But I dont think that young people could take a note of such antique piece of ****.

 

[Dektol Dan]

Well, maybe....

Well, maybe....

I don't think you're getting your best advice on this forum. You ask for professional advice from a group that's 99.9% amateurs and you ask camera advice from a group of Leica fanatics living in a dream world. No offense intended but these folks are a little slanted in their view of the world and you're not going to get very good information on what you want to know.

Photography is NOT ABOUT EQUIPMENT and the equipment does not make an artist. Save your money, learn the equipment you have and add a film body for your existing lenses if you want to shoot film. Put together your best work and get it reviewed. Listen to the people who have worked in the industry and made a successful career in it not people that like to sit at their computers and talk expensive equipment. Look at images from respected people doing what you are interested in and learn from them.

Owning, or indeed being committed to, an old Leica may be living a dream but that does not handicap one's dreams from becoming realities.

Leica's are rather primitive but predictable and reliable pieces of equipment that are equal to or superior to SLRs and DSLRs in the hands of a skilled and experienced photographer in 90% of the shooting occasions one will face in day to day photography. They are in no way a working handicap to the best photographer. They require superior skills, however. They are similar to the best over and under shot gun for shooting trap, a Telecaster guitar for the most skilled player to get the greatest expression, and a Ducati motorcycle in the hands of an experienced rider.

They are not the best interface to today's professional world. The world has changed. It has not left Leica behind. There will always be those who can get the most out of the best tools.

I have been into photography for 40 years, had my own gallery shows, worked as a grunt wedding photographer, event photographer, and taught junior college photography. I have experience in cameras large and small and I still own and use the same.

I am not living a dream when I tell you that the first camera I pick when going out the door is an old Leica; I only compromise with regard to the situation (do I need a long lens, or larger format, or
are there time constraints?). Only then do I drag along something else.

Whether you want to be a pro or not, if you can master a Leica and if you have what it takes to be a good photographer a Leica will make you better. Sure, there are other range finders, but I believe buying into the long and glorious tradition is a sound investment.

Photography may not be about the equipment, but you just try separating the two. If you think you can then you are living a dream.

Izaak Pearlman doesn't play the latest Korean electric violin does he?

 

[NathanJD]

Oh no, the last thing I wanted to do was spark off a 'what's better' debate between rangefinders and SLRs 🙁


Ok, let's look at it this way - I’m planning on going to Rhodes later in the year and I’ll be taking a rangefinder and my D200, the rangefinder will follow me around shops and streets when I’m out with my partner when my photographer's cap is not straight on my head, and the D200 will follow me to monuments, vantage points and sunsets when I want that digital versatility, and clear 21st century glass.

 

[itf]

I'd like to ask some questions of those on this thread that have supported themselves through photography. I've read this thread with interest as it applies to me at the moment. My life is currently spent doing whatever work I can do for short periods of time, living very very cheaply and spending my time following up on my own interests. I've been using film cameras regularly since I was 16 and have only used digital a couple of times and have never owned one.

I've started feeling like its crazy to be spending so much of my time on something, pretty much treating it as my main purpose, without trying to support myself through it. I'm currently trying to figure out how the business side of things works, sort photos, website etc. However, I've started thinking that maybe my use of film is a major hindrance to supporting myself with photography.

Sorry for the long-winded introduction to my questions, but I thought I should say where I'm coming from. In your opinion, what is the major impediment in using film? Is it the time constraints, the ability of digital to confirm you have the photo you want, the look of it, the costs associated with film? Is it even worth trying with film? Anything else? X-ray, I noticed you're involved in documentary, which is the aspect I'm following, so I'm interested to know the opinions of someone much more experienced than I.

Actually, to be honest, I don't know how digital (battery dependent cameras, laptops, etc) would fit with my out-of-a-backpack life, but I guess I could make it work. 10,000 a year would do it!

 

[itf]

It's tough to make a living with photography. I've been doing it many years, but when I started it was MUCH easier to break in. Most of the professional photography world uses digital. Most people who buy photography want digital. Why stack the odds against yourself by using film?

Sorry to be so blunt, but that's the reality in 2008.

No, be blunt, there's no point in pretending it's not the case. The thing is I didn't start out to make a living out of it, I just want to keep doing it and if I could support myself in concentrating on it more, that would be great. The business side of things will be a challenge.

 

[NathanJD]

The advantages of using digital to the minds of clients that are obvious to me as an amateur who works in a non-photography based sales industry are:

A higher success rate of achieving the desired shot due to on-location reviewing not previously available with film photography

A higher degree of editing power during post processing

Quicker turn around time from shoot to print – can also be done on location with a laptop if required

Ability to email photos immediately as they are ready meaning no delivery lag

Delivery to client in a digital file format ready to use with whatever software is used to produce said client’s publications.

The list of advantages no doubt go on. Of course you could always scan your film negatives but then the process is a lot longer, less portable and less reliable than the above.

If you have a name for producing a particular look within your photos and you attribute this partly to the kit combo you use effectively you’re selling the idea of a ‘Joe Bloggs’ photograph as appose to a photograph dependent entirely on it’s own merits.

Most of all remember:

Never let anyone tell you not to do something, take advise but not instruction – innovation is often ill advised.

 

[OurManInTangier]

No, be blunt, there's no point in pretending it's not the case. The thing is I didn't start out to make a living out of it, I just want to keep doing it and if I could support myself in concentrating on it more, that would be great. The business side of things will be a challenge.

Not wishing to muddy the waters but in my experience as a professional photographer the type of kit you have simply depends on the type and demands of the photographic work you wish to undertake.

Digital photography allows speedy results and versatility allowing you to undertake many different types of photography. Film, regardless of whether its 8x10 or 35mm will, in todays climate, mean you will need more time. Maybe its more time to compose and expose in 8x10 format or more time to process, edit and deliver your images with 35mm.

My daily work is press work and for this I can only compete by using digital, if I stayed with film I would simply be too late and picture editors would ignore my work regardless of how good it was because the story would have been told by someone who got their images out sooner. Regardless of whether their images were 'better' or 'worse.'

I have also started to undertake more and more documentary work. For this I usually use film cameras ( two Leica m6's) simply because the projects I undertake may take several months to complete. Other documentary work will have a far shorter timeframe, for instance a chap I know from the VII Agency was covering the May Ball at Cambridge University recently for a Swiss magazine, he had three days to complete the project and get the edited work to their offices. For this he photographed using a Nikon D200 despite preferring to use the Leica M6's he used on many of his previous projects.

To my mind, and from my experience, it truly is a case that cameras are simply tools. You must pick the right tool for the job in hand, sometimes the job you do requires different tools whilst some people may use only one tool their entire working lives.

Only those that have garnered a reputation that puts them at the very top will have clients that are prepared to schedule around the photographer and his/her working habits. So if a client is prepared to wait for their images than I suggest that this is down to their schedule and nothing to do with the photographer, unless you are Elliot Erwitt or Annie Leibovitz ghosting here under an assumed name.😉

itf - From the information that you have given and the way of life you lead, my suggestion would be to stick with digital. From experience I know it is far easier these days to find somewhere to process, edit and deliver images when digital than analogue. A laptop would be a good investment but I've managed myself when mine was broken on assignment by slipping into an internet café. Its by no means perfect but you are more likely to find an internet café than a film processor almost anywhere in the world.

Simply my opinion and advice, I hope you find much more advise here that you can cherry pick from and make a decision that works for you.

Sincere best of luck with the move towards making money from your photography if you end up doing it. It can be extremely hard work but also extremely rewarding.

 

[x-ray]

I took a look at your work and see some very fine documentary images. In all honesty I think you have very good potential. You have an excellent sense of what is important and not trivial garbage and your composition and technical execution is excellent. Your subject matter is timely and not a bunch of trivial fluff like much of what I see today.

If you are interested in making a living at documentary photography it will be hard. I can't even support myself fully with the documentary end. I'm a commercial photographer and have been since college. In college I worked as a PJ and was chief photographer the photo for my college publications. I made serious money doing this and was able to take a year off after school and apprentice in a commercial studio under a master and learn the business and improve my skills. I did this and worked 44 hours a week with no pay. This was one of the best investment i could have made. It's paid me back many times over 37 years.

I've done documentary work since the beginning of my photographic interest and done it as enjoyment mainly. I say a need to preserve our culture because it's constantly changing. Only in the past few years have I tried to market my documentary images. I'm entering portfolio competitions, working with a very good writer and submitting applications for grants and seeking exhibitions in museums and galleries. So far so good with the exception of grant money. I've had very good success with getting published internationally such as the current B&W (US) portfolio edition and had excellent success getting my work into galleries and museums. I made the right connections through some of my commercial clients and have a major museum show opening next year in October and a book being published. The museum is seeking funding for the project that will total around $150K. The show will actually be made up of one large show of 70 images and one of 35 that will tour the US museums. I'm currently in another museum show opening this week and have a gallery in Atlanta that is carrying my documentary and x-ray work (www.x-rayarts.com). All of this is tough to get and takes a good bit of time, persistence and money. A killer portfolio is essential and the drive to get people to look at it. You can't be shy.

I can see the day when the documentary work will bring in good money but it hasn't arrived. My x-ray art brings in very good money with 7 and soon to be 8 galleries in the east and two publishers, one in the US and one in the UK, that have licensed images for murals, wall covering and fine art prints. My commercial work pays the bills and has been very good for 37 years. Simply put this doesn't happen over night and requires 18 hour days to make it and keep it happening. IMO it's worth it just form the satisfaction it brings but the money isn't bad either.

Now the advice. If you want to go into assignment work like a PJ or commercial shooter then DIGITAL is the ONLY way to go. Many established commercial guys went out of business when digital came in thinking they could just use film. It just will not happen except in very rare cases and with a few established pros. Here you need a very good DSLR (no M8, it's a joke in the commercial world). Select a kit for the work you want to do. For example a D300 Nikon or 5D Canon with 3 zooms to cover from very wide to medium tele. You might need a micro in some cases but not all. For ardhitectural you need a full frame sensor and a couple of tilt shift lenses. I find my 24 TSE on my Canon 1DsII to be superb for architectural work. I also find the 90 TSE to be invaluable in the studio for product work. Your kit really depends on your needs. You'll aldo need a good laptop for clients to review images on location (extremely important). Also you need a computer to edit your images and a color calibrating system for your monitor (critically important). A good printer is essential also.

Digital is the key in the commercial world because of the immediate feedback for both you and your client and the ultra short deadlines. Even with film everything in the commercial world must go to a digital file for reproduction. Direct digital cuts out one additional expense for scans and for time. Film and processing are expensive and adds to the cost of any job. In todays world that's important and can be a deal breaker on an assignment.

For documentary work your kit is what ever works for your style. I still shoot 8x10 film all the way down to 35mm. I only shoot film in my documentary work, no digital. Museums and archives want and sometimes require film due to longevity and storage plus there will always be a means of making images form film. I use RF's (Leicas and Zeiss), Nikon and Canon slr's, Hasselblads, Fuji 6x9 and 6x17 and view cameras including 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. Fit the camera to your needs and subject.

Get savvy on business and keep books. Stay up with taxes and don't go into debt to do this. As a freelancer you never know when your next check will arrive. Have money to fall back on and an alternate source of income (job). I wouldn't hurt to work another job while doing the documentary work because film and printing is expensive.

I hope I've answered your questions but if not feel free to PM.

Good luck! Nice work, honest.

 

[NathanJD]

I agree, there are some fine pieces of advice in this thread! i'm glad i asked 🙂! thank you for taking the time even though some of it isn't a reply for me 😉

 

[x-ray]

I want to see everyone that loves photography live their dream. I do every day. Sometimes it's a nightmare but most of the time it's a great life. You guys are young and if you have the drive, artistic eye and business skills you can make it. Success is a blend of many skills, not just a good eye and a technical ability. Being a business person is even more important than ever. If you only want to shoot and sell a few prints here and there then that's fine but realistically it's a hobby not a business. If you want to do it big and make a living then it's a business and has to be treated that way.

Success is all about you and your drive to make it. I've seen a number of poor photographers become great success stories. They had the drive and the ability to promote their work and get it in front of the right people. I've also seen more people with great photographic skills fail miserably because they didn't know how to promote and run a business.

Take every opportunity, promote your work and focus on what you want. If you're doing documentary keep in mind where you want your work to go in terms of final statement. A documentary is nothing more than a story illustrated with pictures not words. Keep it coherent and on one theme. Remember what you are shooting is a change in time and what you are shooting may need time to mature and gain it's value. Images that I shot fifty years ago were common every day events and today because of the passing of time they are a window into the past and have value. Remember this and shoot for the future and what will be important in the future. I'm starting on another documentary that I call "The Silent Depression". This weekend I was out photographing homes in the burbs in foreclosure. Gas stations as we know them and car lots with mega SUV's are things that will be gone in the next 20 years. Remember when they are gone it's too late, Photograph your vision NOW!

 

[itf]

X-ray, OurManInTangier, and leicasniper, thank-you very much for sharing your experiences. I (and I'm sure many others too) am rarely in a position to hear the advice of people in the field, so am very glad to be able to hear what you have to say.

rich