Leica M-D: Pure for the sake of . . . purity?

I have no cool digital photos to post, but just wanted to chime in on the bike conversation at the top of the page. Carbon bikes tend to run rigid while steel will give you some flex. I suppose not many people make steel bikes anymore, but they ride a lot better. One of my bikes is an E-bike w/ a hub motor, and even at a very low price point of $600 it still manages to weigh in at about 50 lbs w/ the battery. So the technology has REALLY helped people who like to bike and need the extra power to get up hills, ride into head winds, or go 30 miles on a ride.

I honestly can't say the same for camera technology. After shooting modern Nikon cameras the last 2 months, I couldn't stand it any longer and bought an old Retina IA w/ the 50 3.5 Xenar. It's built like an old watch, and is a joy to use. Sling it on your shoulder (it weighs something like 500 grams w/ the lens) and you forget it's even there. Sure, the Nikons are more versatile, have higher shutter speeds, and those big, bright viewfinders. When you first pick up a IA you initially think they forgot to give it a viewfinder because it's so small. And of course, you can get great build quality and precision if you go to a Nikkormat or an F, but who wants to carry one of those? Sometimes, better technology isn't the way to go.

I've never shot a digital rangefinder, but my ideal would be a camera that rivaled the M8 in B&W files w/o having to use work-around filters for colour, be small and light, and have a precision feel to it. No plastic, or very little, no screen on the back, and not much need to edit the files. THAT would be a fun camera to shoot. I love Vince's colour shots, they look like film, but the B&W pics still have that inherent digital look due to a lot of reasons. It's me of course, I'm so used to film, but grain and full tonal rendering are what I expect in B&W.
 
Steve M. said:
I honestly can't say the same for camera technology. After shooting modern Nikon cameras the last 2 months, I couldn't stand it any longer and bought an old Retina IA w/ the 50 3.5 Xenar. It's built like an old watch, and is a joy to use. Sling it on your shoulder (it weighs something like 500 grams w/ the lens) and you forget it's even there. Sure, the Nikons are more versatile, have higher shutter speeds, and those big, bright viewfinders. When you first pick up a IA you initially think they forgot to give it a viewfinder because it's so small. And of course, you can get great build quality and precision if you go to a Nikkormat or an F, but who wants to carry one of those? Sometimes, better technology isn't the way to go.

I've never shot a digital rangefinder, but my ideal would be a camera that rivaled the M8 in B&W files w/o having to use work-around filters for colour, be small and light, and have a precision feel to it. No plastic, or very little, no screen on the back, and not much need to edit the files. THAT would be a fun camera to shoot.
Click to expand...

The M-D might be one to look at -- it gives great b+w results, the colour is very nice, and the camera feels great. I can definitely appreciate the old cameras, as I've certainly had plenty of them over these last 40+ years. The M-D seems to be the best of both worlds, at least for me.

As far as the ‘digital look’ of the black and white images go, well what can I say. They look as they look - might be my ‘interpretation’ of the files, as I never take the files right from the camera and call them done. They’re a point of departure, just as my film negs were, so it might just be the way I prefer to have them look through my post-production adjustments. Interesting though -- about 6 years ago I had a show in Annapolis, and all of the shots were printed from M9 and Monochrom files (so pre-M-D). 11"x16" black and white inkjet prints all on Exhibition Fiber. I had more than a couple of seasoned photographers (one of whom did workshops for National Geographic) stick their respective noses against my prints and asked me if they were darkroom prints. So go figure.

Funny you mention old watches -- I love them and have a number of them (a few dating back to WWI), but sometimes it can be a real challenge to get them repaired. I have a 1916 Elgin trench watch that has been in for repair for the last 6 months, and the fellow can't find a crucial part that seems to be particular to that watch. Fast-forward to 2019 wrist watches, and I just picked up a Timex of all things which looks very much like their early trench watches (or the Ingersoll Midget to be precise). $139.99 and it's super-duper. Inexpensive quartz movement of course, but it looks great and keeps great time. Never thought I'd fall in love with Timex watches, but this is my third one and they've all been great. They seem to have struck a nice balance between classic/retro looks, with convenience and price.
 
My wife and I visited Chanticleer near Wayne, PA yesterday. If you've never been, it's an incredible 35-acre garden. I brought the M-D, the 65mm f/3.5 Elmar with the Visoflex III, plus my goggled 35/2 Summicron. I wasn't sure if that combo was going to 'work', but actually they complemented each other fairly well. This 35/2 Summicron is now my favourite lens - f/2.8 to f/4 seems to be its sweet spot. The 65mm lens is actually quite versatile - from infinity down to full macro, it’s been a great addition to my camera bag.

Pretty much typical flower/nature shots, but I'm generally pleased with the results.


Chanticleer12 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Chanticleer11 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Chanticleer9 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Chanticleer8 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Chanticleer7 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Chanticleer6 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Chanticleer5 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Chanticleer4 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Chanticleer3 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Chanticleer2 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr


Chanticleer1 by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
 
Godfrey said:
I particularly like Chanticleer5, Vince. :D

G
Click to expand...

Thanks Godfrey -- I'm thinking I might work on that one a bit more. I want to make it a bit brighter, but doing so causes the orange/red to go a bit funky. I may just start all over again with that shot - when I have time!

Edit -- I toned it down a bit, colour looks better to me now.
 
oldwino said:
I’ve only had my M-D a short while, but it already feels like shooting a really advanced film camera to me. Comfortable, but new. Here’s one with my 1935 uncoated Elmar 5cm f3.5 lens, at about f4.5

48178853361_7fc97152e0_k.jpg
[/url]1935 Elmar 50/3.5 uncoated. by Henry Beckmeyer, on Flickr[/IMG]
Click to expand...

Looks good -- if you copy the 'BB code' from Flickr it should show up directly here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom