Leica-M not for me??

R

regit

Established
Local time
9:59 PM
Joined
Jun 20, 2005
Messages
135
I'm a happy owner of a Leica-M setup. I love the size and egonormics of the camera and I feel comfortable using it. However, I got a feeling that I'm not using the Leica-M as I should. Looking back at some of the pictures I took pre-RF and post-RF, I feel that I'm not getting the same results as I did with SLRs, visually and emotionally. I understand that there's nothing wrong with the Leica-Ms, so it may be something that I can work on as a photographer. It may well be a mismatch of style, philosophy, skills, cameras, subjects, etc ... I really don't know :bang: ... and I'm hoping someone can point me to the right direction.

If you can look at my current pictures and let me know what I can work on, it will be much appreciated (pardon the hobbyist-work)...

These are from my DSLR days (apart from the film gallery) ...
http://www.pbase.com/regit/root

... and these are 98% from the Leica-M (2% from Nikon SLR) ...
http://www.pbase.com/regit/film

I guess the ultimate question is ... is the Leica-M for me? Or I'm better off with the SLR?
 
I don't see any significant difference between the the two different cameras. However, IMHO in your people shots you are too tight in your framing. eg. choping off various body parts.
 
I don't really see a difference either...but you have to go with what makes you happy. If you see a difference between the two, try and pinpoint it and then work on it if you really want to...otherwise, if you're not happy with your m-system, you could always sell the Leicas. It's totally and completely up to you. As I've said before, still say, and will say many, many times again, it isn't the kit you use to take the photos but that you're *taking* photos. Rangefinder, SLR, digital, film...none of that matters. Do what makes you happiest.
 
I guess the ultimate question is ... is the Leica-M for me? Or I'm better off with the SLR?
Click to expand...
I take better pictures with a good rangefinder because of the magical lenses, when compared with my Nikon and Nikkor lenses. But I know I can be much better with photographing if I just took more pictures coupled with a better M lens. :cool:
 
Looks to me like the Leica pics are sharper, it seems most of your digital stuff was of the young lady and there is an appealing "softness" in those photos. It may be the scans vs. the jpegs straight from the DSLR that is the difference.

I don't see any compositional differences, the format is the same, the framing is the same. I would just continue to shoot and get used to it, Nice work!

Todd
 
Regit,
Just about everyone who takes pictures--camera and photography enthusiasts--question direction in their work, equipment, etc. I know I have. What about shelving some of your equipment for the time being and shooting with a camera and lens you haven't used in a while? Maybe choose one camera and one lens, just for a change. Just a thought.
Bill
 
Both sets of images are very good. I thought you would have tighter crops with the slr but I was impressed with th rangefinder compositions.

I have been a lurking here for a while and find myself in similar situation as you. I have been shooting slr's for a year now and just started with the rangefinder again. Thats what brings me back.

dont give up. it felt nice to carry the small camera again. :)
 
Thank you all for your valuable feedback and comments. This is what I like about public forum. Opinions from a diverse group can bring in points that are otherwise blinded from me… well, you know what they say, the eyeball can never see itself :)

I think both Andrew and Bessameister gave me some hints as to why I perceived a difference. I realised that I do indeed tend to frame rather tightly with the DSLR in people shots. As a result, I’m able to see more expressions from my subjects and therefore appeal to me more emotionally. Todd’s observation may also contribute to the whole visual appeal.

My favourite lens for people shot in DSLR is a 85/1.4 and 58/1.2, adding that to the 1.5x crop factor, they are a good 85-125mm. On the RF side, the most use length is 35 and 50, and you guess it, my 90 and 135 get the least use due to the smaller frame on the VF. Given similar shooting style, it is quite natural that I’ll end up with different perspective (doh!!! :bang: ).

I’ll take on-board Bill’s suggestion and concentrate on 90+RF (or even 135+RF) for a while and see if I can develop a new shooting style to note an improvement.

Thank you all for keeping the bigger picture in sight.
 
I get the impression you have shot off a lot of film in a short while with the Leica whereas the digital pictures are over a longer time and somehow have a more relaxed feel to them. I thought there was a sense, particularly in the B+W pictures, that you had an image in mind but it somehow didn't materialise in the final shot, probably because it wasn't really there to be taken: that you felt because you had a Leica in your hands your photos should now be expressive of a particular sort of photo-journalistic idiom that isn't really entirely to do with what you naturally want to photograph. But there were some great images - some of the sunsets, a B+W interior with an organ in it that was beautifully composed. The people shots were in the main less successful with the Leica, the people in them look less at home and I wonder if that is because you were not comfortable with the camera. And there was sometimes too much space round the image. Press on though - it's just a tool for making an image after all, sometimes the Leica will be the best tool but it's not what I would use for taking picures of birds!
 
All the DSLR shots were done with a fair amount of zoom. I don't know what you're using on the M, but it seems they're normal lenses. Thus this is an obvious difference. It's also easier to experiment with various shutter speeds using digital, so I see more experimental shots in the DSLR gallery.

I would not use my M for portraits, simply because I feel I can get more control with the DSLR and feel more comfortable at the end of a shoot knowing that I got some quality shots.
 
Regit -

haven't browsed the pictures in your galleries in great detail (work gets in the way of my hobby - terrible!) but the following thought crossed my mind. Even if the pictures are not (substantially) different, I guess the ease with which you can obtain them also matters?

In some ways it goes back to the equipment versus photographer issue. What's changed is the camera, but not the photographer - therefore the ideas/emotions that make you take a picture haven't changed. This should therefore result in similar pictures - indeed the subject matter (from a quick perusal) appears largely the same.

What changes may be how easy it is to get the pictures. So, while going from sports photography with a DSLR to a Leica M probably wouldn't work, taking the kinds of shots you take, the change is probably/possibly less drastic. The question therefore becomes are you having more fun or finding it (a bit) easier using the M?

I started off life with a Nikon F601 (well, okay, an Instamatic but that was long ago), then went manual with an FM2, getting much better results as I got better quality (prime) lenses. I now have a Bessa R with some CV and Leica glass. The pictures are sharper again - but are they better or even different artistically? I'll be the first to say that I'm not convinced.

I hope this makes sense and contributes in a meaningful way...!

Doctor Zero
 
Aside from others have pointed out, I notice that proportionally more of your Leica stuff is in black in white than your DSLR shots. Perhaps this is because of the whole mystique of using B&W w/Leicas or other RFs, but perhaps you're just more of a color guy & should try shooting more C41/E6 in your Leica. Similarly, you also seem to have been more experimental w/the DSLR, so maybe you should try to loosen up a bit in your Leica shooting & try doing the same kind of stuff as you did w/the DSLR (w/the obvious exception of macro & long telephoto, etc.).

BTW, I very much like the tight framing that you use in your people shots. I've never understood why some photographers feel the need to include extraneous (in most people shots) body parts like feet, etc.
 
Regit,

I don't see a difference in terms of quality. In fact, I rather like your rangefinder work. One personal observation ... it takes longer to get comfortable with RF shooting. I graduated years ago from Nikon SLRs (manual) to Leica, left it for a year because I felt it was a much 'slower' experience than my SLRs, then came back. In the end, it was the relative lower-light ability, compactness and portability. What I realized was that RF has its limitations and hindrances, but these are the burdens you pay for shooting at 1/8 and 1/15. In the end, its a matter of will over matter, in this case, exerting your will over your RF cameras. Make them work their strengths for you, and make yourself overcome their weaknesses. In my opinion, you are doing a fine job already, so I hope you stick with it.
 
I’m thinking out loud here …

Andrew, Ywenz, Dr. Zero, Furcafe and Tom definitely raised some points for consideration, thank you guys. Admittedly, my exposure with the DSLR is substantially longer and there seems to be a lot of changes (more so than I’m willing to admit) by moving from DSLR to RF, even down to from colours to B&W.

I didn’t quite give the Leicas the amount of “trials” as I did when I got my DSLR and perhaps, I’m NOT really that comfortable with a RF though the “fun” factor is definitely there since it is new to me… hmmm. This may be further compelled by the unconscious urge to chatter the waters of journalistic-style photography which is definitely something I’m not quite use to … Consequently, I’m rushing into something new unprepared!!!

In retrospect, the pictures may well be the same but the expectation is not… and that may well be the problem. I’m seeing my RF pictures from a journalistic-style and they don’t have “it”. When replicating a style of photography that is suited for a DSLR, that won’t do as well since DSLR and RF are two different styles of photographic tools … In the end, I’m left with pictures that aren’t quite right for DSLR or RF!!!

I think I’m going back to the basics with the RF. I’ll start the same cycle all over as if the RF is my first camera and make an effort to seek its strengths and weaknesses. I’ll try to see what kind of pictures RF can bring me rather than to see what DSLR-taken-pictures can be replicated through the RF.

Again, thank you for all the comments. They certainly turned a few knobs for me.
 
Your people pictures on DSLR are definitely weighted toward telephotos. You seem to be very comfortable with tight framing of a long lens (I disagree with an earlier comment that the framing was too tight ... it's a matter of preference, but tight framing can be very effective).

I'd simply recommend more time with the 90mm lens.

For the most part I switched to RFs about 15 years ago after a decade of Nikon SLRs. There wasn't really any improvement in my photography. Perhaps even a bit of a decline because I used to make strong use of the 180mm Nikkor SLR lens and the 24mm Nikkor.

On the other hand, I enjoy carrying RF cameras. There's nearly always one with me when I'm traveling or visiting people. There are many photographs I've made because I had the small RF with me that wouldn't exist otherwise. I do have a compact digital carry-around camera these days. But the RF delivers top-notch quality in a small system that I just really, really enjoy using.
 
Regit, perhaps you should forget the whole (IMO nonsensical) notion of rf cameras being photojournalistic and needing B&W. I for one don't give a hoot about such notions. I shoot colour only, even in my M2. I even, blasphemously, covered my M2 in Japanesque Gold vinyl (URL=http://shardsofphotography.blogspot.com/2005/12/leica-challenge-2005.html]_the Golden Dragon_[/URL]).

To me an rf camera is just a camera, which happens to be more suitable for me as a tool. I'm not letting it force me into a certain style of shooting or a certain type of film. Heck, I'm probably not even a true street photog, shooting more abstract and "landscape" than anything else, but it never stopped me from using an rf camera. My advice would be, give the rf camera a chance to prove itself in your style of shooting. Remember, there was a time when there were no SLR cameras and people were shooting all kinds of subjects and all kinds of styles, even doing extremely experimental work, with rf cameras, TLRs, etc. Take courage and example from that and I reckon you'll (slowly) feel better about shooting that Leica.
 
Regit, I took a fairly comprehensive look-see at your photos from the M7 and also the various dslrs you have used. I thought at first that your 35 & 50mm shots with the M7 were a cut above the rest of the rf shots, and that maybe you simply have a better eye with the longer focal lengths. Then looking thru the dslr shots I noticed a preponderance of exquisite tele shots, but also some very nice short focal length photos. In the end I think you just need to give yourself time to learn the strengths of the M7 as well as you know the strengths of the other cameras you own.

You have a great eye, and some of the very best of equipment. Just keep shooting and showing us your talent. We need the inspiration. :)

Regards,

Paul C.
 
Again, thank you so much guys. A little advice, a different opinion and a bit of encouragement goes a long way :) I now know what I should do with the Leica and it doesn't involved selling it, thank you :)
 
your M shots are 10 times better than your SLR. No comparison. Give it a rest, try something different for a while. Don't be so hard on yourself!

In 1999 I felt the same way. Sold off my M4-P and got several Nikons. Eventually I came back w/ a vengence. Do your own thing, but as I said your M pix are better than your SLR. good luck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom