airfrogusmc
Veteran
I find it nice to not have it all to begin with. I have had it both ways and by far prefer the way I have it now. Nice to have a real choice other than the one size fits all world that is everywhere out there.
chipgreenberg
Well-known
I think they do take advantage. Of course there are other options out there for you now.
I have a pair of Leica Ultravid binoculars. They are comparably priced, actually a bit less expensive than the the Zeiss and Swarovski competition.
A Zeiss Otus 55 1.4 is half the price. Yes it has a different design factor. It's big. But it's an optically state of the art, manual focus lens from a premium German optical company build to last generations also. And the Milvus is $1000
I have a pair of Leica Ultravid binoculars. They are comparably priced, actually a bit less expensive than the the Zeiss and Swarovski competition.
A Zeiss Otus 55 1.4 is half the price. Yes it has a different design factor. It's big. But it's an optically state of the art, manual focus lens from a premium German optical company build to last generations also. And the Milvus is $1000
NickTrop
Veteran
Please explain how technology "gets in the way". I've heard this said many times. Please give examples. I genuinely want to understand this mindset. It comes up over and over.
You have PSAM modes. Set to "A". You have control over aperture. You roll a command wheel on your thumb. The aperture appears in the viewfinder. You don't even have to look at the lense. Shutter automatically adjusts. Nothing gets in the way.
Same with "S" except "A" adjusts. Nothing gets in the way.
Want to go full manual? S and A? Set to "M". Nothing gets in the way.
Just want to focus on composition? Set to "P". Really nothing gets in the way.
Want to go slow and methodical? Set shutter to "S" (single frame). Want to shoot continuous frames? Set to "C" (continuous).
You can set-up a modern DSLR, mirrorless, what have you any way you want and leave it alone. I have heard this "all this dang tech gets in the way...".
What I have never heard is "how" it "gets in the way"... As I see it, these features are "there" -- use what you want. Don't use what you don't want. You can it up any way you want, and leave it be. Some make it sounds as if you're perennially fiddling with dials.
You don't.
Or you can -- if you want.
I'd rather have these choices/features than not.
I'd counter that lack of technology "gets in the way". I like seeing the aperture in the viewfinder over having to take my eye away to set it. I like choosing variable ISO (or not) instead of being limited to whatever ISO is on the box. I like being able to quickly switch between the varios modes. All of which can be done in an instant. I like having additiona modes that I don't use often or at all but are there if I want them. I like, with the flick of a dial shooting single or continuous frames. I like not having to look at an external light meter and taking my eye off the VF and fiddling with the lens barrel to set aperture. I like autofocus but having the option of shutting it off and focusing manually if I want.
I like slapping a (now) inexpensive radio flash control on the hot shoe, setting the flash to TTL mode, shooting in "M", setting up the flash on a table on a little stand, bouncing it off the wall, and shoot at any aperture/shutter combo and let the flash do the rest in terms of lighting. This tech opens doors for more creativity, as but one example. It eliminates fighting the photons and being forced to shoot wide open or with slow shutter speeds indoors.
All of which lends itself to more creativity. More options = more creative possibilities.
Or? Don't futz with it. Set-up your camera and don't use any of it.
I've used (most of my life) straight manual cameras from SLRs, to rangefinders, to folders that didn't have light meters. I have used modern D/SLRS with many bells and whistles -- it's not that I haven't used all of them and have no basis for comparison. I simply don't understand this "gets in the way" mindset when I have the option of not using any of them in a modern DSLR, setting up the camera as I wish, and never touching another dial or setting if I so choose.
aizan
Veteran
This is the sore point of Leica’s reorientation into a Veblen good. The company’s legacy to the history of documentary photography and photojournalism, to photographers and viewers who were interested in and committed to important issues, has been used to do a 180 to market themselves to the most unpopulist, exploitative upper class of a century. I’m too young to feel the full force of this transformation, and I guess they didn’t have much of a choice to do otherwise in order to stay in business a decade ago, but it still kind of sucks to have seen part of it. :bang:
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Some people just have to futz with menus if they are there. They can't control themselves. So they buy cameras without menus to compensate for their lack of self control. It is the same nonsense as saying using film slows them down so they can concentrate on making images. They are incapable of controlling themselves with digital options. I have a blender with ten speeds. I only use one. Some people would have to buy a more expensive one speed blender because they can't help themselves. And make up some rationale for why it is better. Or more virtuous. There are even some velben blenders.
Some people just like things to be basic. To be clean, to be designed perfectly. Some people like a Swiss Army knife approach. There is nothing wrong with liking one more than the other. We don’t all photograph the same things the same way.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I`ve often suspected that to be the case .
Like Nick I use cameras without any meters and I also use a Sony A7R2 .
The Sony just gives me many more options and is thus more versatile .
If I choose to avail myself of those options .
The key word being "if".
The blender analogy is spot on.
NickTrop
Veteran
Here's where I think that's wrong. A Swiss army knife does a lot of things crappy. It has a spoon but it's a crappy spoon that's not as good as a single purpose spoon. But SAK spoon gets the job done.
A camera with many functions does all those functions well. I reiterate. You can put it on Aperture priority (or what have you), charge the battery and go. Ignore the other buttons.
That's as clean as it gets.
NickTrop
Veteran
Proving my point. I have yet to hear a valid, specific/granular, rational explanation or example how how/why a modern electronic camera with many features/functions "gets in the way" or "stifles creativity".
Bolderdash -- the lot of it. You're not being forced to use them.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I love it when others try to convince others that they are wrong in their choices. I would never try to convince someone else that their choice of tool is wrong for them. I have been shooting all manual for over 4 decades. It is second nature to me. And rangefinders like Leica M are intuitive to the way I see and work. It is that simple. I hated the decade I shot with the over bloated DSLRs that sell themselves as making the process easier(for most that is true) when in fact they get in the way for someone like me. The last thing I want to do is think about what i am doing with the camera when i am working. So balderdash to some is real to others. And I am not using them. Just clearly stating why I choose what I choose.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
And here is the difference between you and I. I don't want the meter making any exposure decisions for me. The meter sees the world as 18% gray. Rarely what you meter is that. I use the information the meter gives to make my own decisions. And those decisions are usually more based on experience. If what you do works for you great. You have a mountain of those options out there. Nice for photographers like me and others like me to be able to have a different choice.
Nick, even if it is in someone`s head, it is real to them. Some just do not like superfluous modes when there are models that are exactly like they like.
I use a Sony A7R II sometimes ... it is the craziest thing when it comes to all it offers...it`s way too much. I deal with it, but think it is ridiculous. I do like it though. However, I prefer my Fujis because they are simpler.
We don`t all like the same equipment for the same reasons. Why does anyone have to provide a reason to why they prefer something some certain way other than they just feel comfortable with it?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
If technology 'gets in the way' then that's the user's problem and not the device's. Nick is correct in my opinion ... it's the mindset that's at fault!
I'm all for simplicity but I can take as good a pic with my D4 as I can with my M240 ... either camera pleases me.
I'm all for simplicity but I can take as good a pic with my D4 as I can with my M240 ... either camera pleases me.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I've been supporting my family using all kinds of equipment over the years and always exceeded my clients expectations. I can shoot and have shot with everything from an 8X10 Deardorff to auto everything DSLRs, point and shoots and iPhones. It gets down to preference and what works more naturally with the way I see. I prefer what I am now using over all the other digital options.
Others may like auto everything and for them there are a lot of options. I don't like those options and it is good to have a real choice. The M 240 has to much stuff for my liking, thats why I bought the M 262 instead. Love how simple they left the M 10. They are tools to me and these are the tools I prefer period.
I'm with both of you too... I use both simple and complex cameras. However, do not tell you do not have a preference. All preferences are in the mind or as you guys say the user's problem. Why is it a problem though? Everyone has a favorite when they love something enough to be on the forum daily. There is nothing wrong with preferring a simple, stripped-down device even if it is just because it gels with you. I think that is what people are trying to say when they say something gets in the way.
sjones
Established
Why should anyone have to prove to anyone else what is ultimately just personal preference. And yet, here I am. I’m clearly with airfrogusmc on this, and if someone wants to judge my supposed lack of self-control, fine, I would rather be stuck with my personal and ultimately benign idiosyncrasies.
There’s nearly eight billion folks on the planet; shockingly, they’re going to like to do things differently. And given that we aren’t all preprogrammed automatons (not yet), a pure logical reason might not necessarily exist to validate our actions, wants, needs, and desires, no matter how silly, irrational, whimsical, and comical they might seem.
If someone likes the color red but not blue, they like the color red but not blue.
But we actually get this: “You like red but not blue, balderdash! You can’t! There’s no tenable argument or cogent reason why you should like the color red but not blue! For the love of all Gods, your mindset must be at fault. You’re intellectually defective! You should be deported you unsatisfactory scum!”
If someone wants to make such a humble and open-minded assertion, that’s their prerogative, but it’s not really germane to relevancy, now is it? And I actually like the color blue; don’t know why, just do.
Intangibles exists, mysteries exists; it makes things a bit more lively and spontaneous.
I use a Leica M2 and one lens; it’s not to boast about how better I am that I don’t need auto-this or that; it’s simply a clutter averse configuration that I personally enjoy irrespective of any other people’s druthers.
If this bothers someone to the point where they feel justified to make presumptuous quips, then maybe I’m not the only one who suffers from some type of unrestrained compulsion.
For me, as an example, video on a still camera is like a festering glob of odious gangrene—to me! And that’s my opinion; it’s not debatable. For most photographers, video’s inclusion is perhaps nothing short of a godsend, and it’s a requirement if a camera company wants to survive…I get it. That’s fine. It’s called choice. This isn’t a cheerleading contest; there’s room for all!
Look at it this way (back to colors). If you have a car, think about it painted in a color that you despise. Well, then just ignore the paint job; the car performs the same…it gets you to A and B just as well as that other car in your favorite color. Maybe you can, in fact, ignore this; your enviable willpower places you firmly in the homo superior taxonomy. But for many of the little people, ignoring is not always so easy. “But this is not the same! It’s not analogous!” Yeah, actually it is. Ignoring is an action; it’s a verb.
Some people enjoy simplicity in overall design, there’s an attractive elegance that also enhance functionality—for that particular person!!! And golly, I don’t think that this approach is all that radical. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m not acquiescing on my appreciation of choice, however nonsensical others apparently find it.
Anyway, I’m not going to discuss this further, because again, it’s a completely subjective issue.
I’m out.
There’s nearly eight billion folks on the planet; shockingly, they’re going to like to do things differently. And given that we aren’t all preprogrammed automatons (not yet), a pure logical reason might not necessarily exist to validate our actions, wants, needs, and desires, no matter how silly, irrational, whimsical, and comical they might seem.
If someone likes the color red but not blue, they like the color red but not blue.
But we actually get this: “You like red but not blue, balderdash! You can’t! There’s no tenable argument or cogent reason why you should like the color red but not blue! For the love of all Gods, your mindset must be at fault. You’re intellectually defective! You should be deported you unsatisfactory scum!”
If someone wants to make such a humble and open-minded assertion, that’s their prerogative, but it’s not really germane to relevancy, now is it? And I actually like the color blue; don’t know why, just do.
Intangibles exists, mysteries exists; it makes things a bit more lively and spontaneous.
I use a Leica M2 and one lens; it’s not to boast about how better I am that I don’t need auto-this or that; it’s simply a clutter averse configuration that I personally enjoy irrespective of any other people’s druthers.
If this bothers someone to the point where they feel justified to make presumptuous quips, then maybe I’m not the only one who suffers from some type of unrestrained compulsion.
For me, as an example, video on a still camera is like a festering glob of odious gangrene—to me! And that’s my opinion; it’s not debatable. For most photographers, video’s inclusion is perhaps nothing short of a godsend, and it’s a requirement if a camera company wants to survive…I get it. That’s fine. It’s called choice. This isn’t a cheerleading contest; there’s room for all!
Look at it this way (back to colors). If you have a car, think about it painted in a color that you despise. Well, then just ignore the paint job; the car performs the same…it gets you to A and B just as well as that other car in your favorite color. Maybe you can, in fact, ignore this; your enviable willpower places you firmly in the homo superior taxonomy. But for many of the little people, ignoring is not always so easy. “But this is not the same! It’s not analogous!” Yeah, actually it is. Ignoring is an action; it’s a verb.
Some people enjoy simplicity in overall design, there’s an attractive elegance that also enhance functionality—for that particular person!!! And golly, I don’t think that this approach is all that radical. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m not acquiescing on my appreciation of choice, however nonsensical others apparently find it.
Anyway, I’m not going to discuss this further, because again, it’s a completely subjective issue.
I’m out.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
Exactly! I also shot with two digital systems for a few years. I shot with Canon and Leica. Sold all the Canon digital equipment and went all Leica M a few years back. Doesn't mean the equipment is bad. Doesn't mean that I think Canon is bad or Nikon is bad of Fuji is bad. It just means that I prefer Leica M and not because I am a dentist or I am a snob or I'm a poser as has been implied in this thread or I can't shoot with other equipment because I can and I have done it very well. I prefer a simple approach and for me Leica M rangefinders are cameras that get out of the way and just let me create. That doesn't mean for the decade I shot with digital Canons before I switch to Leica I wasn't able to make good photographs. I just never liked the shooting experience with those cameras.
In the film days I shot with more than two systems. My favorite by far was my 500 C/Ms. I also shot with Nikon F3s, large format and as I already stated still have my Canon F-1s.
airfrogusmc
Veteran
I agree and nice to have choices sjones.
Guth
Appreciative User
I did not think that the topic of this thread was about personal preferences so much as it was about the pricing structure of Leica's M system cameras (I'm not even touching upon the prices for Leica lenses). Whether or not some professional photographers prefer the straightforward design of the cameras within the M platform doesn't change the fact that Leica primarily markets to and is dependent upon the wealthy for their well being.
While some people might not like the bells and whistles appearing on the state-of-the-art cameras from the likes of Canon and Nikon, for others they are likely a godsend. I imagine that those photographers focused on subjects like sports photography or nature photography for example have much different needs than someone using a rangefinder camera and those bells and whistles likely make quite a difference when it comes to the images they are able to capture. The ability to shoot 14 fps is bound to yield different results than 5 fps. Different tasks require different tools.
The R&D costs for developing all those bells and whistles surely adds up. Take away a number of those features, decrease the sheer performance metrics,etc. and you have a camera that is less expensive to produce. Yet Leica is still charging two arms and two legs for their digital M's. When I look at what is inside of the M10 for example, the only logic that makes sense to me when it comes to the pricing structure of the digital M's is the velben reference made elsewhere in this thread. Those who are using these cameras as tools of their craft are the ones who I cited as being caught in the undertow. I don't interpret their choice to use these cameras as anything more than a personal preference. The right tool for the job so to speak. I doubt that any professional photographer would find these cameras any less desirable if Leica were to offer them at say half of the price they currently charge. However I don't believe the same to be true for a good percentage of Leica's customers these days. It is possible, maybe even likely that I'm missing something here. I'm open to learning more.
While some people might not like the bells and whistles appearing on the state-of-the-art cameras from the likes of Canon and Nikon, for others they are likely a godsend. I imagine that those photographers focused on subjects like sports photography or nature photography for example have much different needs than someone using a rangefinder camera and those bells and whistles likely make quite a difference when it comes to the images they are able to capture. The ability to shoot 14 fps is bound to yield different results than 5 fps. Different tasks require different tools.
The R&D costs for developing all those bells and whistles surely adds up. Take away a number of those features, decrease the sheer performance metrics,etc. and you have a camera that is less expensive to produce. Yet Leica is still charging two arms and two legs for their digital M's. When I look at what is inside of the M10 for example, the only logic that makes sense to me when it comes to the pricing structure of the digital M's is the velben reference made elsewhere in this thread. Those who are using these cameras as tools of their craft are the ones who I cited as being caught in the undertow. I don't interpret their choice to use these cameras as anything more than a personal preference. The right tool for the job so to speak. I doubt that any professional photographer would find these cameras any less desirable if Leica were to offer them at say half of the price they currently charge. However I don't believe the same to be true for a good percentage of Leica's customers these days. It is possible, maybe even likely that I'm missing something here. I'm open to learning more.
NickTrop
Veteran
Yet? We might tell someone they are wrong in their choices all the time.
Should I smoke? No. Bad choice.
Should I vote to re-elect a certain "person"? No. Bad choice. (Sorry.)
I am morbidly obese. That first gigantic banana split was delicious. Should I order a second? No. Bad choice.
This extends to tools as well.
Should I use the heel of my shoe to hammer in that nail? No. It would probably be a good idea to use that hammer over there.
Sure. I'll tell someone they're making a bad choice. I recon we all do from time to time -- no?
And here again.
There is nothing that gets in the way with modern photography equipment. I reiterate. You can disavail yourself of everything the camera has on offer and just shoot. I reiterate. I have yet to hear a reasonable, rationale account of how modern, many-featured DSLRs "get in the way" or "stifle creativity".
And, yes, it's as okay to make such a recommendation as it is to "suggest" any of the examples I've cited in the post. To do so is nothing personal. And as illustrated, we do this all the time.