Informative & Infuriating

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
8:35 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
When I was using film Leicas for the majority of my work, I use to check in to Dante Stella’s blog regularly. It was genuinely informative, the product of intelligent thought combined with practical experience. I have no idea why I stopped checking in regularly, probably a vanished bookmark. But the other day I was doing some photo research and his site came up in a search. It was good to catch up. In particularly I found two posts of interest. One is an intelligent review of the Leica 240 ending with an interesting comparison to the Fuji X-Pro, (scroll to the bottom of the page and read up through the more recent installments) The second will infuriate some members of the forum and bring resounding hurrahs from others.


http://themachineplanet.wordpress.com/category/photographic/digitalia/

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/leica-ennui.html
 
Technologically, Leica is behind, certainly. In the same way that most smartphones are behind a top of the line Android smartphone.

It's not in any way that matters though. Sure, top end phones have 8 core processors, not 4 core, or 2 core, or (God fordbid) a single core.

It's the same with digital cameras, lots of technological changes, almost none of any significance.

Higher ISOs get less noisy, autofocus gets quicker, FPS goes up, all the rest of it, but you're still left with consumer electronics which will be replaced soon enough.

Nothing wrong with Leica technology, or Fujifilm for that matter, but our consumerist desires for higher numbers in our specifications make it seem like there is.
 
From the second link [Leica M: that distinct feeling of ennui]: "Maybe this will change on May 10, 2012 with some huge product announcement."

Things change slowly in Leica world but in the time since that article was written some things have changed ....
 
I'm tired of all these blogs comparing apples and potatoes for traffic.

If you like your digital photography experience to be close to your rangefinder film shooting, try Leica M8/9/ME/M9P/M240/epson RD1.

If you like the auto-everything game-console shooting get a D800 or Fuji.

It's really all that simple. What do you like?
 
jippiejee said:
I'm tired of all these blogs comparing apples and potatoes for traffic.

If you like your digital photography experience to be close to your rangefinder film shooting, try Leica M8/9/ME/M9P/M240/epson RD1.

If you like the auto-everything game-console shooting get a D800 or Fuji.

It's really all that simple. What do you like?
Click to expand...
Well, I like old stuff. I drive a 22-year-old 4x4 that even my father can't pick from the 50-year old version (Land Rover). I live in a 100 year old house. I buy 2nd hand cameras. I won't keep Leica alive as a company!

It's not film Leicas that they need to compete with, it's top-shelf imaging machines from all manufacturers. I think Dante is on the money - if you are spending that much (money) you expect top-notch imaging. And as he says, the current cameras (even the M-240) are derivative rather than innovative.

But I am sure that Leica know that. The current M is a step in the right direction. The next one might just be the "great leap forward."
 
Speaking of the great leap forward ... I can't help but wonder what the repercussions may be of something totally new that doesn't really look like it could have been made middle of last century! :D

Would the Leica faithful accept such change?
 
Scrambler said:
It's not film Leicas that they need to compete with, it's top-shelf imaging machines from all manufacturers. I think Dante is on the money - if you are spending that much (money) you expect top-notch imaging. And as he says, the current cameras (even the M-240) are derivative rather than innovative.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if anyone ever bought Leica for image quality did they? 35mm film just didn't provide that in the face of medium format cameras which were smaller, lighter and available before Leica cameras were.

Image quality within a certain remit, maybe, that it must be on 135 film, but even then, it's a dicey proposition to say that anyone can really tell the difference.

I don't think that many more people are buying Leica for image quality than people are buying Breitling watches for their accurate timekeeping (as any $10 quartz watch will keep time better than a $10k Automatic).

I think many people bought Leica (myself included) for the unsurpassed experience of using one. I think if they truly wanted amazing resolution and clarity, they'd be more in the market for a tripod than another camera.
 
Bill Pierce said:
...In particularly I found two posts of interest. One is an intelligent review of the Leica 240 ending with an interesting comparison to the Fuji X-Pro...
Click to expand...
When reading the Dante Stella review of the M240 some time ago, I was struck by the lack of discussion of the color rendition compared to that of the M9. This subject is a minefield because many M240 users essentially claim that it's all a matter of post processing and that a digital file can be processed to look like anything that you want it to. But that is not what my eyes tell me, having looked by now at countless M240 images on the web and having tried processing some M240 DNGs.

After buying an M-Monochrom in November 2012, I was driven to buy an M9-P (I got a very good price on a new one) in February 2013 after reading the following statement by Charles Peterson, a Seatlle photographer who showed me some of his personal color work with the M9 that I found to be outstanding:

I do think that the higher iso's on the M9 are vastly underrated, and in general much prefer the image quality of the M9 to the M240. The M9 (and Monochrom by de facto) IMO are truly two of the most unique digital cameras out there when it comes to the quality of the image. Not the "best" on paper but they have a look, an "umami" as the Japanese might say, that no other 35mm digital camera, comes close to.

Recently two other photographers, who in my view have good "color sense," bought and tried the M240 but ended up returning the camera. One is "fotografz" (Marc), whose concern has been skin tones, who found that the M240 is still to fraught with color issues and IR contamination...the skin tones from the A7R are much better out of the camera, and allow flexible creative explorations, rather than trying to fix something. (He kept the A7R for the relatively small amount of color work that he does). The other photographer is "Prosophos" (Peter), who wrote on his blog that he sold his M240 because of its unsatisfactory color rendition and bought an M9 again.

My own experience is that the M9 color rendition is indeed unique, generally being more like that of color slide film while that of other cameras tends to be more like that of color negative film. The Chiang Tung Days book project under my signature is an example of the type of color rendition that I like from the M9.

I don't know anything about the color rendition of the Fuji X-Pro. When the Fuji X-Pro first came out I looked at its hybrid viewfinder and found that I could see clearly through the optical viewfinder image — I have good distance vision but need reading glasses — but saw only a fuzzy image in the EVF. Unfortunataly, the store did not have any diopter lenses, but I assume that putting a diopter on would render the EVF image fine but would make the optical VF image fuzzy. I've always wondered how people that need reading glasses would be able to use this camera. Anyone know?

—Mitch/Paris
Chiang Tung Days
[Direct download link for pdf file for Burma book project]
 
malland said:
When the Fuji X-Pro first came out I looked at its hybrid viewfinder and found that I could see clearly through the optical viewfinder image — I have good distance vision but need reading glasses — but saw only a fuzzy image in the EVF. Unfortunataly, the store did not have any diaper lenses, but I assume that putting a diopter on would render the EVF image fine but would make the optical VF image fuzzy. I've always wonder how people that reading glasses would be able to use this camera. Anyone know?

—Mitch/Paris
Chiang Tung Days
[Direct download link for pdf file for Burma book project]
Click to expand...

I need reading glasses but my sight is otherwise fine. I have a +2 diopter on my X-Pro1 and everything is fine, both near and far.
 
thegman said:
I'm not sure if anyone ever bought Leica for image quality did they? 35mm film just didn't provide that in the face of medium format cameras which were smaller, lighter and available before Leica cameras were.

Image quality within a certain remit, maybe, that it must be on 135 film, but even then, it's a dicey proposition to say that anyone can really tell the difference.
Click to expand...

Well I would say yes, with film you did buy for image quality, and yes when I looked at the first few images from each pack that came back from my lab I could differentiate from my Canon and Leica, lack of distortion and micro contrast rather than sharpness, but there is a diffrence.
Actually I could also see the same with a friends Leica/Nikon work except with a Nikon 50 mm that he had which had a similar look to Leica
It was also quality at slow shutter speeds, 37 exposures per roll and with less tripod dependency than 120.
I don't see such a diffrence in the digital sphere, but I've only personally used an M8 and couldn't get on with the colours and sold on. The M9 I like the look of, but I've stuck with the M6 as it gives me something very different from my Canon digital. I probably need the flexibility of an SLR system for my work, so to justify the expense of Leica digital it would need to offer something I can't get from Canon beyond user experience.
 
bobbyrab said:
Well I would say yes, with film you did buy for image quality, and yes when I looked at the first few images from each pack that came back from my lab I could differentiate from my Canon and Leica, lack of distortion and micro contrast rather than sharpness, but there is a diffrence.
Actually I could also see the same with a friends Leica/Nikon work except with a Nikon 50 mm that he had which had a similar look to Leica
It was also quality at slow shutter speeds, 37 exposures per roll and with less tripod dependency than 120.
I don't see such a diffrence in the digital sphere, but I've only personally used an M8 and couldn't get on with the colours and sold on. The M9 I like the look of, but I've stuck with the M6 as it gives me something very different from my Canon digital. I probably need the flexibility of an SLR system for my work, so to justify the expense of Leica digital it would need to offer something I can't get from Canon beyond user experience.
Click to expand...

Slow shutter speeds are certainly better than any SLR I've used. My Leica M3 compared to a Zeiss Super Ikonta, not sure if there was much difference. Maybe the Leica was a little easier as the shutter release was so smooth.

Lots of exposures per roll is a clear advantage if you need it, but I sometimes struggle to get to the end of a roll of 120 in my Rolleiflex!
 
thegman said:
I'm not sure if anyone ever bought Leica for image quality did they? 35mm film just didn't provide that in the face of medium format cameras which were smaller, lighter and available before Leica cameras were...
Click to expand...

I use both medium format film and an M6. Even the Mamiya 7 is quite a bit larger, both the body and especially the lenses. Medium format isn't great in low light either since lenses generally aren't as fast, and those that are give you far too shallow a depth of field for most use.
 
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140728

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=140728

michaelwj said:
*cough* M5 *cough*

And it wasn't even that radical.

Michael

Edit - lets not get into the M5 v M4/4-P/6 debate, even though I started it...
Click to expand...

Oh! Wonderful.Now a religious war between Fundamentalists and Radicals. Well going digital is sort of radical?:D
 
Bill -

Terrific articles. The comparisons between L and F are especially timely :) and they point out the silliness of arguing about which is "better" and why. I would think that after reading it, many of us would want BOTH!

Now you've done it...given me GAS again? :)

Thanks,

Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom