Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
To somebody who doesn't own one, yes. To somebody who owns one, hell no: they have a backup Corvette, Lamborghini, and a few spare Mercedes. Different colors to match what they're wearing that day -- I say that's very flexible.ferider said:
richard_l
Well-known
Maybe this inflexibility just seems more common among Leica users. It may be only a tiny minority of Leica users who exhibit this tendency, but if they are a highly vocal minority, it can easily appear that most Leica folks are this way. This is not an uncommon phenomenon on the internet, where things are often not as they seem to be. It is not hard to spot highly opinionated Leica users, and I really think they are not as numerous as you seem to suppose.rxmd said:
However, I can speak only with certainty for myself. I have a lovely M2 (and an M3 and an M6). Is it my favorite camera? I have an excellent set of Leica optics in focal lengths of 35mm, 50mm, and 90mm. Are these my favorite fields of view? No and no. My favorite camera is not even a rangefinder, and my favorite focal length is neither 35mm, 50mm, nor 90mm. My favorite camera is the incomparable Rollei 35 S (with the 40mm/2.8 Sonnar).
Am I interested in the digital Leica? No. 'Curious' would be a more appropriate term. I'm just not especially fond of digital images, even with artificial film grain tossed in by a photoshop plugin. The crop factor just is what it is. Better a crop factor of 1.33 with edge to edge image quality than a crop factor of 1.00 which you have to crop manually in PS to get a decent photo.
In a way, I can sympathize with those who don't like the idea of having to toss away part of the images produced by lenses which were carefully engineered (at great effort and expense) to be optimum for the 35mm format, but I would attribute this more to feelings of frugality (and possibly minimalism) than inflexibility.
Richard
Grober
Well-known
Absolutely. And I'm glad they do too.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Stealing a line from Fox Mulder: "Grrr - Richard, what are you wearing?"richard_l said:
I agree also.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
I don't mention it at RFF however I have a couple of Leica M4P's I don't use them any more than my other cameras. They are good tools. I also have other fine (in my opinion) cameras that cost a significant amount less. The Leica view finder is nicer than my fixed lens RF's like the Canonet , Yashica, or Konica.
Still I don't get as excited or effusive as some who do own them. I like them because I have a good sturdy reliable body to match to FSU glass! Go figure.
Still I don't get as excited or effusive as some who do own them. I like them because I have a good sturdy reliable body to match to FSU glass! Go figure.
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
rxmd said:
I think the point is a bit different. Leicas, expecially old ones, are beautiful objects, so no wonder so many people like them. They are also expensive. Even used ones. Even now that, supposendly, all the pros are gone digital. For this reason many people don't like to show (or to think about themselves) that they are using one "only" because they like it and this is why they come out with a lot of explanations of why their photography style could not accomodate to a digital camera. I think that usually, unless you go to radically different sort of cameras (say from a RF to a view camera) most of the photographs are almost uniquely the result of the brain which controls the finger which action the shutter and that Bresson and all the other chaps who made Leica famous would have made almost the same incredible photographs with a top-of-the-line modern digital and they would have also taken great photographs if they had to use glass plates. Nevertheless, I like my Leicas and I wouldn't trade any of them with a new M8... I possibly could take better picture with the M8 because of the possibility of seeing the picturfe "on the field" but just I don't like the feeling of digital cameras (unless you have an assignment, in which case I don't like the feeling of not being sure of the outcome as it is somethimes the case with a film camera). This is just taste but I don't see the point of doing something if one doesn't enjoy it, so I will stay with my M4, my screw-mount-to-M adapter and my 50 year old collipsible 50mm lest... I don't think this is a sign of mental stiffness, just taste...
Giella lea Fapmu
raid
Dad Photographer
When I first read the title of this thread, I was thinking of something different from what is being discussed here. I was more thinking of the collectible part of Leica photography. Would you treat a mintish $2000 M body more carefully than a beaten up $400 Bessa (say), and would you miss some good shots accordingly? I know that there many users of M bodies who do not pamper their M cameras, but there are also many M collectors who also take photos.
Raid
Raid
giellaleafapmu
Well-known
raid said:
I wouldn't treat them differently, i.e. I would use them with as much care as it is allowed by the situation in which I am taking photographs but I would never miss a shot in order to protect the camera. I live in a rather dangerous part of South America where the possibility of being robbed is quite high, so I might lose my photographic gears any time I bring them out, for this reason the best thing I can do is to get as much profit from them (=take as much photographs) as I can. Collecting is not my game, so I am not completely sure, but I have the feeling that usually collectors don't take many shots with their collectibles. I even know a lad who lives in a small village of Italy who has a collection with something like 40 Leica bodies and about 60 lenses and who shots photograps for living with his...Nikon because he sais he doesn't trust reflex Leicas but has to use reflex because of long lenses et cettera... Apparently he uses a Leica (always the same one) only in his spare time...
Giella lea Fapmu
Bromo33333
Established
I couldn't disagree more - you seem to fall into the "it is entirely the photographer, never the equipment" category.
Each camera type and brand is a slightly different tool - and it is optimized for a job in photogrpahy. A good photogrpaher will be able to select the right tool for the job to make it appear as if the camera and equipment is not present - leaving the effect desired.
To make an extreme example - if one were to outlaw all cameras except Instamatics and their pictures - there would be some good pictures still, but because a wide range fo tools aren't available (MF, LF, small format) many jobs would be awful.
Now, you main question - are Leica owners inflexible? The answer is - Yes, and they should be. A new Leics costs $3500 without a lens, $5000 if you include a 50mm/f2 lense, new. For that kind of money you can just about any type of camera in the world, new - Hasselblad 500 series, Rolleiflex, Mamiya 7ii, Leica, etc. You can and should deamnd exactly what you want and why - Leica is making their living by offering maual controls, little automation, and it is (somewhat ) successful.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
Your honor, this man does not represent me.Bromo33333 said:
I'm inflexible only at certain joints, and I don't mean those smoked by certain people.
richard_l
Well-known
If you pay a large amount of money for a piece of photographic equipment and are not picky about it, then you're a sucker.
Richard
Richard
JohnL
Very confused
When I first saw the specs of the M8 with the 1.33 crop factor, and the available framelines, and figured out what they mean in terms of FOV, I was a bit concerned that my current lenses (28/3.5, 35/1.2, 50/2.5 and 90/3.5) would be inappropriate. To some extent, this is in fact so, but I now reckon I can get close to where I'd like to be with just two new lenses, which won't cost too much as I'll be staying with CV for the foreseeable future:
1) The 21/4 will give me the same FOV as my 28mm. I'll use the full area of the viewfinder for framing ... I've worked it out that the error is minuscule.
2) The 35/2.5 will give me a slow-and-small normal lens for daylight use.
I'll continue to use the 28/3.5 as a moderate wide-angle. I'll continue to use the 35/1.2 for low light - the narrower FOV will only be an issue indoors in small-to-average rooms, and I'll probably be able to use the higher ISO with the 21 or 28 to handle those situations.
I doubt I'll use the 50 or the 90 very much. Maybe someday I'll get a 75.
All this assuming I can summon up the courage for the M8 AND find one that's available.
For me personally I think a 0.58x viewfinder would be a better match for the M8, with 21+28, 24+35 and 50+75 framelines.
1) The 21/4 will give me the same FOV as my 28mm. I'll use the full area of the viewfinder for framing ... I've worked it out that the error is minuscule.
2) The 35/2.5 will give me a slow-and-small normal lens for daylight use.
I'll continue to use the 28/3.5 as a moderate wide-angle. I'll continue to use the 35/1.2 for low light - the narrower FOV will only be an issue indoors in small-to-average rooms, and I'll probably be able to use the higher ISO with the 21 or 28 to handle those situations.
I doubt I'll use the 50 or the 90 very much. Maybe someday I'll get a 75.
All this assuming I can summon up the courage for the M8 AND find one that's available.
For me personally I think a 0.58x viewfinder would be a better match for the M8, with 21+28, 24+35 and 50+75 framelines.