How much is enough? Which Leica?

[zerobuttons]

Dave,

I probably haven´t got an adequate answer to the last question in your first posting. I believe that both choices - digital and film - sooner and later would make the choice of gear less than simple to work with. Film, because of ever fewer places selling film and developing equipment (including chemicals). Digital, because of the hassle with white balance, making sure you have spare batteries and that they are charged, etc.

Until recently, I used only a Leica MP (2003) with Summicron 35 and 90. Because of the hassle of traveling with film, I bought an M-P 240 when I got the opportunity, financially. I found that because of that choice a lot of unexpected needs arose: backup harddrives, white balancing equipment, spare charger, etc.

The reason I post a reply, even though I lack a qualified answer, is your reference to useful, but beautiful things. Call it wisdom or not, I have the urge to acquire such things. I usually think of them as useful AND beautiful things. Furthermore, these things often tend to be over-engineered to a degree where you have no doubt that the manufacturer actually wanted it to last - and not only until the next iteration of the product emerges. So, here you may have a kind of an answer anyway: the kind of gear that would suit your imagined user, would probably be gear of this kind. Gear that doesn´t break down while on the road, or when you don´t have money for repair. Gear that just works as expected. If you add to that the specification that the gear also has to be design-wise pleasing to look at, I would say that any Leica M, whether film or digital, would fit the bill. Oh, and to that previous answer from another member, who claimed that using a Leica camera is the opposite of simplicity, I can only say that I completely disagree.

 

[Steve M.]

Tough question on this forum where there's collectors and lots of camera and lens hoarders, but since I am not that enthusiastic about rangefinders (like to take flower shots and portraits) my camera of choice would not even be a Leica. It would be either a Nikon N8008s or a Nikkormat, BUT w/ a Leica R 90 2.8 Elmarit on it.

A little heavy, true, but my last setup was probably the best thing I will ever own for taking knock out gorgeous shots. The N8008s was especially nice, as a motorized AE camera w/ exposure lock is silly fast to shoot in stop down mode, and the 1/8000 top shutter speed was good for wide open head shots in sun even w/ Tri-X. The Nikkormat was a little slower to use and had a slower 1/1000 top speed, but Nikkormats are such cool cameras. That shutter sounds as good as a Leica, and they seem to be built just as solidly. Both can be purchased for peanuts. Still, what I like, you may not.

It doesn't matter which camera you use in the end, the lens is the thing, but having a fast-to-use camera w/ a bright, accurate viewfinder is a pleasure, and means you can get shots that other cameras can't deliver. I live a very simple, intentional life as a Zen practitioner, and last year sold all my cameras to go back to painting and drawing. The other driving force was to focus on darkroom printing these thousands of negs that have accumulated over the years. Might even have 10 or 15 keepers in there! There's been too much emphasis on image taking, now it's time to make the images.

 

[nongfuspring]

A little ironic that when talking about someone that is living the simple life unanchored by material trappings that we're talking about which high end boutique rangefinder they'd be most likely to own. Someone living one day to the next is not going to own a Leica at all.

Surely they'd just have whattever was given to them/inherited/picked up at a good price. Something that delivers without hassles, cheap to repair, cheaper to replace. Realistically today probably a digital, a 5d or similar, a Nikon FM if film.

 

[Gregm61]

Ah... Back to work for me so I must go...maybe tomorrow we can delve further. However, the reason Leica is the only brand selection, subjective, yes, with the original premise of simplicity with... Aesthetics and elegance. I have owned six Leicas over the years and I find that Leica M bodies fit the premise of simple and beautiful better than any other camera.

Truth be known... My favorite all-time camera is the black FM3a I had to sell. It is my favorite for reasons that are hard to quantify. I am excluding that selection from this discussion for my own reasons unrelated to this discussion.

Which Leica? It is an interesting question isn't it?😛

Currently owning an M262, an M9 that just received the new sensor and two film M's, an M4 and M6, if I had to live with just one, it's be the M262. No need or want for video/live view, etc and the menus are simple. There are few things one can mess up, assuming decent knowledge of centerweighted metering and what the user has to do to make it work in less than ideal light. It's basically a digital M6, at least as close to an M6 as a digital camera's going to get. After 4 months use, If there's bad image capture it's on me, not the camera.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

A little ironic that when talking about someone that is living the simple life unanchored by material trappings that we're talking about which high end boutique rangefinder they'd be most likely to own.

Simplicity still has nothing to do with cost. The equating of the two things, which has happened several times on this thread, and could probably have been avoided if one had read the OP with a little more understanding, is a form of logical non sequitur. People "living day to day" out of poverty and the lack of life's necessities....anyone who has ever been there will tell you that there is nothing simple about that.

Thoreau at Walden, on the other hand, was in no way impoverished, he had just chosen to live simply. If he had had an M-A with one lens with him to while away the time, instead of spending it planting corn, it would not have necessarily been any less simple a life. More so, as anyone who has ever tended a garden will understand.

The idea that two things, poverty and simplicity, can be found together does not mean that the first is a requisite for the second. Having one camera and one lens is simpler than having 4 cameras and 6 lenses. The cost of the cameras is immaterial.
Being "unanchored by material trappings" is related to the number of things one is forced to deal with on a daily basis, not what they cost originally.

 

[robert blu]

Hi Dave, interesting question in this thread, not "simple" to answer...I have to think more about...

I'm just back from a trip where i used my M7 and the 50 cron. It was simple enough.

robert
PS: but that was not the only camera I had with me...

 

[hendriphile]

If one truly appreciated simplicity, I doubt a Leica would be the camera of their choice.

Just sticking to photography… One of today's best known DSLRs has an instruction manual over 400 pages long (404 to be exact).

The Leica M3 manual is eight pages long.

BTW My first car was also a 62 beetle…loved it. The first beetle, I believe, to have a gas gauge! Talk about simplicity!

 

[robert blu]

BTW another beetle driver here, not first but my second car, I guess about '72/'73 ...hmmm I have to look in my archives for a photo...
robert

 

[aizan]

the image of the nomad is very romantic, and it appeals more to the wealthy or the aspirants of wealth these days. to truly challenge oneself, you must choose a camera with very low status and social currency, and commit to the everyday problems where you live, or else it is just a delusion of transformation and liberation.

*strokes beard thoughtfully*

 

[megido]

http://fotografiamagazine.com/letter-by-sergio-larrain-to-his-nephew/

 

[nongfuspring]

Simplicity still has nothing to do with cost. The equating of the two things, which has happened several times on this thread, and could probably have been avoided if one had read the OP with a little more understanding, is a form of logical non sequitur. People "living day to day" out of poverty and the lack of life's necessities....anyone who has ever been there will tell you that there is nothing simple about that.

Thoreau at Walden, on the other hand, was in no way impoverished, he had just chosen to live simply. If he had had an M-A with one lens with him to while away the time, instead of spending it planting corn, it would not have necessarily been any less simple a life. More so, as anyone who has ever tended a garden will understand.

The idea that two things, poverty and simplicity, can be found together does not mean that the first is a requisite for the second. Having one camera and one lens is simpler than having 4 cameras and 6 lenses. The cost of the cameras is immaterial.
Being "unanchored by material trappings" is related to the number of things one is forced to deal with on a daily basis, not what they cost originally.

Not sure how you understood "living day to day" then.

You might recall in Walden the first half of the book or so was devoted to economics; to Thoreau living simply meant spending a minimum of money so one would work less and live more "deliberately", he even goes as far as breaking down his monthly expenditures. Frugality to him was contiguous with freedom, because it meant less dependence on the world around him and more opportunity to take control of his own time. Perhaps if he were into photography he might have made his own pinhole or traded his excess potatoes for a broken camera that he would learn to fix himself, but to say Thoreau would wear rags, tilling dirt with a new M-A around his neck seems to miss the point of his writing entirely. The idea that the cost of one's possessions are "immaterial" could hardly be further from Thoreau's philosophy.

I've lived for 5 years on the road, living "simply" and traveling nearly non-stop. I enjoyed shooting Ms, but owning one as a primary camera was simply not practical; first there is the up front costs, then there's the potential repairs which would mean weeks if not months of not having a camera, let alone the unexpected expense of the repair. It may have a simple interface but any M is a mechanically complicated camera and neither is it easily replaceable. In a pinch I've repaired SLRs with a pocket knife, I'd never do that with a Leica.

 

[FrozenInTime]

The simplified life - minimal possessions and simple living does not need to be a all or nothing choice.

Taking a couple of days, a week, a month and traveling with everything you need in a backpack is equally liberating.
I've done this in the UK, Europe, Australia and New Zealand - generally just taking one camera.

A British writer Alistair Humprey - is a proponent of the micro-adventure ; taking a evening , day or weekend to travel light and explore. http://www.alastairhumphreys.com/category/blog/microadventures/
Just walking up a hill at night and camping under the stars works in Britain.

However in the USA, at least in California where I currently stay, society makes ad-hoc exploration impractical. Anyone over student age with a backpack is viewed with suspicion as a vagrant. Backpackers Hostels few, public transport difficult; vagrancy, cannabis cultivators and land trespass culture effectively prohibit free camping.

I look forward to going back into the Scottish hills:
I will jump on a train from Edinburgh and in a couple of hours will be in the highlands.
I will take a small backpack, my Leica M-A with a 35mm lens and some Tmax400.
I will camp where ever I want or stay in mountain bothies ( free to use open huts ).

A few days of escapism then back to reality.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

Not sure how you understood "living day to day" then.

Okay.

But, back to the subject of simplification and whether or not it has anything to do with how much your limited items of equipment cost---

It still doesn't.

From the OED:
Simplify:
1. verb trans. Make into a single form or structure; unify.
2. a verb trans. Make simple or less complex or elaborate; make easy or more understandable. b. verb intrans. Become (more) simple.


That's it, that's all that's in there. That's the definition of simplify. Nothing in there about cost. Simplicity has to do with complexity not cost, that's all I was saying.

Words have meanings. If people want to make up their own meanings, or argue with the OED, I guess that's their business, but it's a slippery slope.
I'll stick with the definition of the word "simplify", personally. I'm just that way.

Dave, good luck with your quest if you choose to embark on it. I wish I had the mental resolve to pare things down myself.

 

[Keith]

Fifteen years ago I was living in a very small house at the edge of the rain forest next to a creek. It was a small one room A-frame with a loft for sleeping and a verandah on the side. I had no TV, no internet access, no hot water just cold and a very good garden where I grew a lot of my own food and gave to others what i couldn't use myself. I did have the luxury of electricity!

I lived like this for nearly eight years ... it was the happiest I have ever been in my life and I constantly marvel at why I walked away from it to live the way I do now! To exist simply with a a minimum of assets gave me a joy that cannot be described and if I could go back there right now I would in a heartbeat!

 

[tunalegs]

Ah... Back to work for me so I must go...maybe tomorrow we can delve further. However, the reason Leica is the only brand selection, subjective, yes, with the original premise of simplicity with... Aesthetics and elegance. I have owned six Leicas over the years and I find that Leica M bodies fit the premise of simple and beautiful better than any other camera.

Truth be known... My favorite all-time camera is the black FM3a I had to sell. It is my favorite for reasons that are hard to quantify. I am excluding that selection from this discussion for my own reasons unrelated to this discussion.

Which Leica? It is an interesting question isn't it?😛

Simplicity + aesthetics would probably equal an Exa 🙂
exa by Berang Berang, on Flickr

It's a camera which is even quite beautiful on the inside. Simple, robust, and elegant, both aesthetically and mechanically. The fact that it is well made simplicity is a large part of why it is so attractive. While there are many simpler cameras out there, there are few which are built to as high a standard, or which are as flexible in use. I could imagine somebody being into a Rollei B35 for example, but it wouldn't give them as much freedom as an exa (and it is rather more complex inside). A Rolleicord or any number of simpler TLRs might also fit the bill. Medium format itself is simpler than 35mm, and requires less exacting handling to get good results. Perhaps that would figure into one's choice?

 

[dave lackey]

Simplicity + aesthetics would probably equal an Exa 🙂
exa by Berang Berang, on Flickr

It's a camera which is even quite beautiful on the inside. Simple, robust, and elegant, both aesthetically and mechanically. The fact that it is well made simplicity is a large part of why it is so attractive. While there are many simpler cameras out there, there are few which are built to as high a standard, or which are as flexible in use. I could imagine somebody being into a Rollei B35 for example, but it wouldn't give them as much freedom as an exa (and it is rather more complex inside). A Rolleicord or any number of simpler TLRs might also fit the bill. Medium format itself is simpler than 35mm, and requires less exacting handling to get good results. Perhaps that would figure into one's choice?

Hey, just turning in and checked the forum to see the photo of this beauty! Yes, that is a gorgeous machine! My CiroFlex is loaded and I have a lot of 120 film to shoot... so yeah, that beauty is both more functional and a knockout. I need to shoot a lot more 120 as it has occurred to me that a medium format could be a nice matchup... Thanks for posting that!

I will check back in a few hours, sleep beckons, and a nice cup of coffee or three will go great with catching up on this thread!

 

[Nowhereman]

Fifteen years ago I was living in a very small house at the edge of the rain forest next to a creek. It was a small one room A-frame with a loft for sleeping and a verandah on the side. I had no TV, no internet access, no hot water just cold and a very good garden where I grew a lot of my own food and gave to others what i couldn't use myself. I did have the luxury of electricity!

I lived like this for nearly eight years ... it was the happiest I have ever been in my life and I constantly marvel at why I walked away from it to live the way I do now! To exist simply with a a minimum of assets gave me a joy that cannot be described and if I could go back there right now I would in a heartbeat!

So, who's the "material girl" that pulled you away from this idyllic existence?

_______________
Alone in Bangkok essay on BURN Magazine

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Back to the original topic (sorry); I was thinking about this last night and realised that this thread is very similar to a lot in the travel section (or elsewhere) along the lines of 'I am going to Paris/London/Strixton for a week... ' that then goes on to ask what camera to take and how many lenses etc. And like this thread the answers vary from 'go to Pisa instead' to two Hassies, Polaroid and Leaf back or an Olympus XA2.

Just thought I'd mention it.

BTW, I have the same problem daily as we like to take a walk in the woods or beside the river and so on every day. If I take a small wide angle (28mm) compact the deer come out of the woods and stare at us, or else a Kestrel will be bombed by the crows, and taking the 180 or 200mm lens on a SLR means nothing appears except I need the macro lens for some exotic butterfly and so on. It's a simple question with an ever changing and complicated answer and I've not mentioned the metering problems yet...

Regards, David

 

[dave lackey]

Wow, I have a lot of catching up to do...🙂

David, your experience is what happens to me as well. Sometimes I wonder why I even carry a Leica to see the grandkids... they never sit still and when they do, I get cheesey smiles... But yes, choosing the proper gear for all moments anticipated or not, well, is most likely backwards but we can get close sometimes. An SLR with a 24-70 and a Leica M with fixed lenses is my thinking. Simple. Two small shoulder bags. One quite functional, the other certainly capable and lovely in every way.

That reminds me... William Morris:

"Have nothing in your house that you do not know to be useful, or believe to be beautiful."

Clearly some things can be both useful and beautiful.

 

[dave lackey]

Fifteen years ago I was living in a very small house at the edge of the rain forest next to a creek. It was a small one room A-frame with a loft for sleeping and a verandah on the side. I had no TV, no internet access, no hot water just cold and a very good garden where I grew a lot of my own food and gave to others what i couldn't use myself. I did have the luxury of electricity!

I lived like this for nearly eight years ... it was the happiest I have ever been in my life and I constantly marvel at why I walked away from it to live the way I do now! To exist simply with a a minimum of assets gave me a joy that cannot be described and if I could go back there right now I would in a heartbeat!

Yikes, Keith, I had no idea...

I presumed your moving forward was partly to put the simple things behind. My own experience was not of my own choosing but how could it be any other way?

In looking back, my years at university were kind of like that. Not only did I survive but I have fond memories and war stories, too.🙂 I am thinking that symmetry in my life has come full circle.