rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Hi everybody,
again I've got a couple of thoughts that I'd like your comments on.
Everybody knows that Leica users tend to be conservative people. But after reading a lot over the last months I think some of them aren't really conservative so much as inflexible in their approach to photography, and I wonder how that comes about and what it means.
With the M8 there were all these discussions about in which ways it departed from the M line and what changes this meant for Leica photography. The kind of discussion about wind levers and smaller sensors. Some users apparently were quite inflexible about this, especially about field of view and the unacceptable 1.3 crop factor - the change from 50mm to apparent 65mm or from 35mm to apparent 47mm apparently was completely out of the question for many to compromise on. Now I understand that if you spend lots of money you have certain expectations, but what astonished me was how some people appeared quite entrenched that their style of photography was impossible under the new conditions. While there are some good arguments why a cropfactorless camera would be a good thing, I wonder why a 39 degrees FOV is so special vis-a-vis 32 degrees with the same lens? And how much of a difference the DOF really makes, in practice? And how much you really need an expensive fast superwide, when you can get a cheap marginally slower superwide and crank up ISO at the press of a button? I would presume that a good digital rangefinder would offer enough advantages and differences that people would be ready to brace themselves for some changes in their work, but apparently change can only be taken in very small amounts at a time. In other words, people have become entrenched in how their Summilux delivers a certain perspective that it is too much if the perspective changes by a very slight amount; they have become inflexible.
(Maybe the SLR crowd doesn't have this problem so much because they know better by now, or because they've got zooms, I don't know.)
There were other examples before the M8. A classic one is the M5. Packed with features in a convenient package, yet it fails catastrophically, largely because of two reasons: 12 mm extra length, 7 mm extra height. Apparently this was already too much for parts of the userbase, let alone to carry it vertically. Talk about being inflexible!
I wonder how this comes about. The only reason I can think of is that Leica users are very much emotionally invested in their gear, to the point when they really think that some perspectives are more natural than some other slightly different ones. Or where they really think they can take good pictures only at precisely the perspectives they are used to from their lenses. Or where they really think that the ideal rangefinder camera is 138x77x36 mm carried horizontally and everything else is a deviation. Have all these people forgotten what it was like when they got their first and second cameras and lenses, how they explored it with an open mind, tried it out and experimented with the possibilities? If a new camera offers you something unique and entirely new, does it really matter if the fields of view or the dimensions are exactly the ones you're used to or slightly different?
In my opinion being a good photographer should transcend the use of a particular device. I should be able to give a good photographer an arbitrary camera (say, a 1977 Praktica EE-2 SLR with a Biotar 58/2 lens) and he should be able to produce meaningful pictures in spite of the slightly odd focal length and the weird camera body after the second roll or so. Maybe not exactly the same as with other cameras, but good ones nevertheless. So why is it that people become so entrenched and inflexible? Is it only because Leicas are expensive? Because they are "a myth"? Because there are some hidden laws of nature which the M2 embodies and the M5 and M8 fail to embody? I would be interested to hear what you think about this, especially if you feel affected by this.
Philipp
again I've got a couple of thoughts that I'd like your comments on.
Everybody knows that Leica users tend to be conservative people. But after reading a lot over the last months I think some of them aren't really conservative so much as inflexible in their approach to photography, and I wonder how that comes about and what it means.
With the M8 there were all these discussions about in which ways it departed from the M line and what changes this meant for Leica photography. The kind of discussion about wind levers and smaller sensors. Some users apparently were quite inflexible about this, especially about field of view and the unacceptable 1.3 crop factor - the change from 50mm to apparent 65mm or from 35mm to apparent 47mm apparently was completely out of the question for many to compromise on. Now I understand that if you spend lots of money you have certain expectations, but what astonished me was how some people appeared quite entrenched that their style of photography was impossible under the new conditions. While there are some good arguments why a cropfactorless camera would be a good thing, I wonder why a 39 degrees FOV is so special vis-a-vis 32 degrees with the same lens? And how much of a difference the DOF really makes, in practice? And how much you really need an expensive fast superwide, when you can get a cheap marginally slower superwide and crank up ISO at the press of a button? I would presume that a good digital rangefinder would offer enough advantages and differences that people would be ready to brace themselves for some changes in their work, but apparently change can only be taken in very small amounts at a time. In other words, people have become entrenched in how their Summilux delivers a certain perspective that it is too much if the perspective changes by a very slight amount; they have become inflexible.
(Maybe the SLR crowd doesn't have this problem so much because they know better by now, or because they've got zooms, I don't know.)
There were other examples before the M8. A classic one is the M5. Packed with features in a convenient package, yet it fails catastrophically, largely because of two reasons: 12 mm extra length, 7 mm extra height. Apparently this was already too much for parts of the userbase, let alone to carry it vertically. Talk about being inflexible!
I wonder how this comes about. The only reason I can think of is that Leica users are very much emotionally invested in their gear, to the point when they really think that some perspectives are more natural than some other slightly different ones. Or where they really think they can take good pictures only at precisely the perspectives they are used to from their lenses. Or where they really think that the ideal rangefinder camera is 138x77x36 mm carried horizontally and everything else is a deviation. Have all these people forgotten what it was like when they got their first and second cameras and lenses, how they explored it with an open mind, tried it out and experimented with the possibilities? If a new camera offers you something unique and entirely new, does it really matter if the fields of view or the dimensions are exactly the ones you're used to or slightly different?
In my opinion being a good photographer should transcend the use of a particular device. I should be able to give a good photographer an arbitrary camera (say, a 1977 Praktica EE-2 SLR with a Biotar 58/2 lens) and he should be able to produce meaningful pictures in spite of the slightly odd focal length and the weird camera body after the second roll or so. Maybe not exactly the same as with other cameras, but good ones nevertheless. So why is it that people become so entrenched and inflexible? Is it only because Leicas are expensive? Because they are "a myth"? Because there are some hidden laws of nature which the M2 embodies and the M5 and M8 fail to embody? I would be interested to hear what you think about this, especially if you feel affected by this.
Philipp
Last edited:
Chris Lynch
Film Enough.
i think you're making alot of good points here. I'm sure many of the heavey Leica users that are upset by the crop factor either haven't used DSLR's, or simply don't understand the tech/money constraints of a FF sensor.
I for one, am happy they went with a crop sensor at least for now: it keeps the camera almost affordable! If this was a FF camera (24x36mm), it would be closer to $10,000, if not more! Also, 1.3X is a good compromise!
I for one, am happy they went with a crop sensor at least for now: it keeps the camera almost affordable! If this was a FF camera (24x36mm), it would be closer to $10,000, if not more! Also, 1.3X is a good compromise!
smiling gecko
pure dumb luck, my friend
tick, tick, tick
tick, tick, tick
10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.....ignition.
tick, tick, tick...
this shoud be interesting...
i have my own inflexibilities...like prefering med. format & over 35mm.
no responses yet @ 1755 hours -5 GMT ??
i'm outta here.
kenneth
NEVER FORGET BESLAN
www.neverforgetbeslan.com
kenneth@neverforgetbeslan.com
tick, tick, tick
10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1.....ignition.
tick, tick, tick...
this shoud be interesting...
i have my own inflexibilities...like prefering med. format & over 35mm.
no responses yet @ 1755 hours -5 GMT ??
i'm outta here.
kenneth
NEVER FORGET BESLAN
www.neverforgetbeslan.com
kenneth@neverforgetbeslan.com
Last edited:
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
It would be interesting to have an arbitrary camera, you set the aperture to f/2 and it arbitrarily sets it to f/8, or the shutter to 1/100 sec, and it arbitrarily sets it to 1/777 sec. And when you want it to fire, it won't, or it'll fire when you don't want it to. An arbitrary camera, that'd be fun.
T
Todd.Hanz
Guest
Do Leicas make you inflexible?
Let's see, I used to be able to touch my toes without bending my knees, that was when I shot Nikons. I have a couple leicas now and I can't even see my toes much less touch them. So yes Leicas make you inflexible, inflexible and fat.
As far as the M8, most people probably figured that Leica took so long to come out with their first digi-rangefinder that it had to be perfect.
It's funny, all the hooplah about this camera and yet no sample images. Many people plunked down hefty deposits for something they haven't fondled, shot, or seen how it performs.
interesting thoughts though.
Todd
Let's see, I used to be able to touch my toes without bending my knees, that was when I shot Nikons. I have a couple leicas now and I can't even see my toes much less touch them. So yes Leicas make you inflexible, inflexible and fat.
As far as the M8, most people probably figured that Leica took so long to come out with their first digi-rangefinder that it had to be perfect.
It's funny, all the hooplah about this camera and yet no sample images. Many people plunked down hefty deposits for something they haven't fondled, shot, or seen how it performs.
interesting thoughts though.
Todd
nightfly
Well-known
I'm a relatively new and probably youngish Leica user but I think I can understand a little why people would be upset. I have no intention of ever buying an M8 so I have no emotional investment in the issue but from a sort of outsider perspective, I think it's fairly easy to understand:
Leica lenses are really expensive. If I buy a 28mm lens, I persumably didn't want a 35mm lens so the field of view is a big issue if you've just bought a $2000 lens. The wides are especially expensive and rangefinder photography's big advantage is really in the wide angle part of the game. I think I'd be pissed if my 35 just became a 50.
Part of the Leica's appeal is the way it looks and feels as well as functions. The M5 failed because it was bulky and ugly.
If you are all about function, you're not going to buy a Leica and certainly not an M8 when you can get a much more functional DSLR for several thousand dollars less.
I don't think the problem is that Leica users are hamstrung by their equipment any more than any other camera users. They just have made some very specific choices about what they like in a camera and in many cases have spent a lot of money in pursuit of something that gives them the features that they want and probably more importantly leaves out a bunch of stuff they don't want.
It's probably no more fair to say that a Leica user couldn't take a good picture with another camera than that a race car driver couldn't drive a minivan.
Leica lenses are really expensive. If I buy a 28mm lens, I persumably didn't want a 35mm lens so the field of view is a big issue if you've just bought a $2000 lens. The wides are especially expensive and rangefinder photography's big advantage is really in the wide angle part of the game. I think I'd be pissed if my 35 just became a 50.
Part of the Leica's appeal is the way it looks and feels as well as functions. The M5 failed because it was bulky and ugly.
If you are all about function, you're not going to buy a Leica and certainly not an M8 when you can get a much more functional DSLR for several thousand dollars less.
I don't think the problem is that Leica users are hamstrung by their equipment any more than any other camera users. They just have made some very specific choices about what they like in a camera and in many cases have spent a lot of money in pursuit of something that gives them the features that they want and probably more importantly leaves out a bunch of stuff they don't want.
It's probably no more fair to say that a Leica user couldn't take a good picture with another camera than that a race car driver couldn't drive a minivan.
AndyPiper
Established
Inflexible, no - high-maintenance, yes.
"But I'd like the pie heated and I don't want the ice cream on top, I want it on the side, and I'd like strawberry instead of vanilla if you have it, if not then no ice cream just whipped cream but only if it's real; if it's out of the can then nothing." - Sally Albright (Meg Ryan) in "When Harry met Sally"
"But I'd like the pie heated and I don't want the ice cream on top, I want it on the side, and I'd like strawberry instead of vanilla if you have it, if not then no ice cream just whipped cream but only if it's real; if it's out of the can then nothing." - Sally Albright (Meg Ryan) in "When Harry met Sally"
bobkonos
Well-known
Inflexible? Not at all: the feel, precision, accuracy, and sheer enjoyment from using my Leica, as with any fine tool, inspires me to see more, think more, act more on my creative instincts. Inflexible? That's what happens when you do not stretch, and a Leica makes you want to stretch your capabilities.
High maintenance? Hmmm...set aperture at f8, set corresponding shutter speed, see, feel, shoot, advance film, repeat as you like. Function and feel, that's it.
High maintenance? Hmmm...set aperture at f8, set corresponding shutter speed, see, feel, shoot, advance film, repeat as you like. Function and feel, that's it.
AndyPiper
Established
Bob K.: Perhaps you avoid the high-maintenance trap. But there have been quite a few posts here along the lines of:
"But I want the M8 with a wind lever even though there's no film to wind, and I don't want the frame-counter LCD on the left, I want it on the right , and I'd like a .85x viewfinder instead of .68x, if you have it, if not then a .58x but only if there's no crop factor, if there's a crop factor then nothing."
-- to borrow from the movie again.
yammer, yammer, yammer, whine whine whine...
"But I want the M8 with a wind lever even though there's no film to wind, and I don't want the frame-counter LCD on the left, I want it on the right , and I'd like a .85x viewfinder instead of .68x, if you have it, if not then a .58x but only if there's no crop factor, if there's a crop factor then nothing."
-- to borrow from the movie again.
yammer, yammer, yammer, whine whine whine...
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I pretty much agree. I certainly have my preferences and can be curmudgeonly when it comes to voicing those preferences. But having worked with 35mm, MF and LF cameras, each have their own strengths and charms. I certainly didn't dismiss my M3 because it didn't have swings, tilts & rise ... and the huge negative size of my Toyo. Nor did I dump the Toyo because it was larger than an M3.
That said, I find a lot of Leica users here on RFF are very flexible, and enjoy using other non-Leica RFF gear. Heck, some of them even really like the M5.
That said, I find a lot of Leica users here on RFF are very flexible, and enjoy using other non-Leica RFF gear. Heck, some of them even really like the M5.
richard_l
Well-known
Who the hell cares? Jeeze!
heliographer
Member
In the old days, when I was just getting started (1980s), I tried everything affordable, knowing that I probably wanted a Leica, because all of my favorite photos had been shot with them (Robert Frank, Winogrand, Helen Levitt, etc.). I was able to take OK pictures with Kodak Retinas, early point and shoots, Canonets, and even my Nikon F2 that went off like a thunderclap every time I took a picture. I even tried 4X5, hoping it would suit my style. I then tried a Mamiya TLR and took some nice portraits with Konica 750 when I could still get it.
Guess what? I finally knuckled down and got an M2 (I got an M3 first and sold it--didn't care for 50mm). I found out that the best possible camera for my particular style of shooting (street photography, for want of a better word) was an M2 with a 35mm Summaron 3.5. Once I got one, suddenly, with effort and practice, I came very close to taking the kinds of photos I wanted to take. I got used to the particular combination of a manual, mechanical camera (no batteries, no meter) with a 35mm lens. I could usually guess exposure with 85% accuracy or better, and could estimate the framing from my waist or chest with the same accuracy, and could place the plane of focus just so with the M2 at eye level. I could hand-hold exposures to 1/2 second. I could shoot without people noticing.
It was more than discipline, which is how some people describe Leica photography. It was simply an extension of my thought processes, but quicker and more spontaneous than any other camera/lens combination I have ever used. Feel the little shutter speed dial, I knew by touch what shutter speed was set (the old notch for the MR Meter). Click down the aperture to the right F stop. Scale focus already set. Fire. Advance silently. Fire again. And again.
Will I buy an M8? No way. It changes all the things that matter. Battery independence. A lens that sees what I am accustomed to seeing (no cropping please). Sane cost. (I paid $295 for the M2, and $100 for the Summaron back in the 1980s. Even with inflation I'm way ahead).
I put the Leicas aside and have only recently picked them up again. I have tried M6s, Bessas (L, R, T), and some Pentax SLRs. The M2 is absolutely the best camera I have ever owned or used (well, alright, I wish I still had use of that Sinar P2 8X10). No Leica (including the M4 I still own) can hold a candle to it. The M8 represents a completely different set of priorities.
Is this "inflexibility," or experience mixed with preference?
heliographer
Guess what? I finally knuckled down and got an M2 (I got an M3 first and sold it--didn't care for 50mm). I found out that the best possible camera for my particular style of shooting (street photography, for want of a better word) was an M2 with a 35mm Summaron 3.5. Once I got one, suddenly, with effort and practice, I came very close to taking the kinds of photos I wanted to take. I got used to the particular combination of a manual, mechanical camera (no batteries, no meter) with a 35mm lens. I could usually guess exposure with 85% accuracy or better, and could estimate the framing from my waist or chest with the same accuracy, and could place the plane of focus just so with the M2 at eye level. I could hand-hold exposures to 1/2 second. I could shoot without people noticing.
It was more than discipline, which is how some people describe Leica photography. It was simply an extension of my thought processes, but quicker and more spontaneous than any other camera/lens combination I have ever used. Feel the little shutter speed dial, I knew by touch what shutter speed was set (the old notch for the MR Meter). Click down the aperture to the right F stop. Scale focus already set. Fire. Advance silently. Fire again. And again.
Will I buy an M8? No way. It changes all the things that matter. Battery independence. A lens that sees what I am accustomed to seeing (no cropping please). Sane cost. (I paid $295 for the M2, and $100 for the Summaron back in the 1980s. Even with inflation I'm way ahead).
I put the Leicas aside and have only recently picked them up again. I have tried M6s, Bessas (L, R, T), and some Pentax SLRs. The M2 is absolutely the best camera I have ever owned or used (well, alright, I wish I still had use of that Sinar P2 8X10). No Leica (including the M4 I still own) can hold a candle to it. The M8 represents a completely different set of priorities.
Is this "inflexibility," or experience mixed with preference?
heliographer
akptc
Shoot first, think later
Interesting discussion, even though I only bought the M7 'cause it is so darn cute! Being a newbie to quality rangefinders, I am quite flexible (and experimenting all over the place with my RF purchases) but find it incredibly fascinating how emotionally charged gear ownership can be. It would make for one heck of a disseration for a psych student
rvaubel
Well-known
ferider said:So how long do you guys think it will take until Leitz comes out with a new set of "digital only" lenses, say a 35/1.0 Noctilux, usable on the half format M8 only ?
I was just checking my Zuiko 42/1.2 and wondering how easy it would be to adapt
Roland.
Roland
Is that full frame? What kind of mount is it. Can I get an adapter for my "M" mount RD1? This sounds like a great lens for my crop factor RD1! It would be fun comparing bokah with my 40mm/1.4 Nokton. A great portrait focal length on a crop factor camera
Rex
....arf, arf
P.S. thanks for the repair. A shot of my wife with the Serenar ...1/10sec @ f4
RD1 @ISO 1600
Attachments
Andy Aitken
Registered Loser
Funny I was just thinking the same about the Zuiko 21mm f2.0 on the M8. I don't suppose they would be adaptable though.
rvaubel
Well-known
ferider said:
Well, the shot is a little out of focus. I quess I didn't slap the RD1 against my palm hard enough. Got to get that damn thing fixed.
Is the PEN F a baynet mount lens? The leica SM adapters are 1mm thick so it might work. Send a picture and I'll see if my machinist tninks its feasible. The real problem is the rangfinder coupling. That would make it a perfect match for my broken RD1
Rex
rvaubel
Well-known
Andy Aitken said:
This is really strange because I been thinking of this lens. I think I can make an adapter. Since its for the OM SLR their is plenty of room.
I think Roland is right about the possibility of a "digital only" lens series for the M8. This would be similar to Canon's EF-S series of lenses for their 1.6X crop 30D, 350XT, etc. I think that Leica will wait a bit to see how the M8 does in the market but if it's a hit. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few fast, wides coming of the design board. Its so much easier to design a more compact lens for a reduced format camera.
I'm dreaming but still....
Rex
rvaubel
Well-known
ferider said:A little picture showing you two "normal" 1.2 lenses, a Zuiko on half format on the left and a Canon full format on the right. Lenses are roughly from the same period, the Zuiko is a bit younger. Registration distance is very similar,
left camera is an SLR.
The size difference is what you loose when you use full frame lenses on a format with a 1.4 crop factor; in addition to DOF changes, etc.
I have no problem with different cameras, etc. Sure the M8 will be great. I have a problem with propaganda, brand fanatism and marketing hype.
Cheers,
Roland.
PS: Rex, yes it is a specific Olympus PEN bayonett.
Are you saying that half frame is equvilant to what we would call 1.4 X crop factor today? I'd never thought about it until you mentioned it but the square root of 2 does = 1.414.
I quess it would vignette a little bit on the M8 but maybe you could code the lens to think it was a 21mm Elmarit and the M8 would automatically correct for it!!!
Oh man, talk about opening a can of speculative worms
Rex
rvaubel
Well-known
ferider said:
Roland
I hate to burst your bubble, but I believe the Leica "D" series is for the 4/3rds system. In my opinion, that sensor is way to small to ever have high ISO numbers. The other problem with 4/3's is that the standard insists on large backfocus distances to avoid vignetting. Thus the lenses have to be bulky, retrofocus designs that do not take advantage of the the smaller sensor's relaxed frame coverage. The M8, with its offset microlensing, can make possible compact, semi-symmetrical , true rangefinder designed lenses. Throw in a reduced coverage factor, and we could get some really cool fast wides in the near future.
Oh, by the way, Kodak developed the offset micro-lenses for the 4/3's standard. Thats why they had the idea developed for the M8 sensor. To bad Oly never took advantage of it. Oh well, Oly's lose is Leica's gain.
Rex
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
ferider said:
The answer to this one is quite simple: never. They would be compatible with nor the film camera line, nor future larger sensor M camera's. That would run totally contrary to everything Leica stands for.