Austerby
Well-known
This is from the introduction to the M7 on the Leica website:
"Silver halide photography with a Leica M has a special appeal: the understandable process of exposing the film and the chemical processing of the same piece of material create an emotional relationship with the subject and the camera. The concentration when taking the photograph, the keen anticipation of the literally tangible images and the excellent results are all arguments in favour of analog Leica M cameras. "
Sounds pretty spot-on to me.
"Silver halide photography with a Leica M has a special appeal: the understandable process of exposing the film and the chemical processing of the same piece of material create an emotional relationship with the subject and the camera. The concentration when taking the photograph, the keen anticipation of the literally tangible images and the excellent results are all arguments in favour of analog Leica M cameras. "
Sounds pretty spot-on to me.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, their web-master has a weakness for 8x10 inch cameras...
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Teuthida
Well-known
Typical hyperbolic Leicaspeak. Anything to convince the huddled masses to spend ridiculous money to claim elitist status.
If I want to shoot film, my k1000 works just fine.
If I want to shoot film, my k1000 works just fine.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Typical reverse snobbery. A cheap SLR is not a better camera than a Leica, just cheaper, and still more importantly, it isn't a rangefinder. Ridiculous money? A lot depends on your priorities. And on which cameras you like using. Are you saying that these remarks apply less to the MP than to your Pentax?
Cheers,
R.
Teuthida
Well-known
LOL. I 've owned inunmerable Leicas since 1977. I own 3 now. I also have owned and used inunerable "lesser" cameras. The results between the two are minimal at best. Feel free to define this as "reverse snobbery." I call it being realistic. You are welcome to define your Art by the eqyuipment you use. I'll define mine by the images I produce, thank you.
Austerby
Well-known
Let's edit then to try and focus on the important bit of the message rather than be distracted:
"Silver halide photography has a special appeal: the understandable process of exposing the film and the chemical processing of the same piece of material create an emotional relationship with the subject and the camera. The concentration when taking the photograph, the keen anticipation of the literally tangible images and the excellent results are all arguments in favour of analog cameras. "
"Silver halide photography has a special appeal: the understandable process of exposing the film and the chemical processing of the same piece of material create an emotional relationship with the subject and the camera. The concentration when taking the photograph, the keen anticipation of the literally tangible images and the excellent results are all arguments in favour of analog cameras. "
__hh
Well-known
Marketing fluff to me.
I still use film and have my own reasons for doing so. I don't need Leica's marketing department to tell me why I still need to buy M bodies to shoot film
I still use film and have my own reasons for doing so. I don't need Leica's marketing department to tell me why I still need to buy M bodies to shoot film
Austerby
Well-known
Marketing fluff to me.
I still use film and have my own reasons for doing so. I don't need Leica's marketing department to tell me why I still need to buy M bodies to shoot film
OK, may as well delete this entire thread if its going to be used to bash Leica rather than get an interesting discussion going :bang:
Corto
Well-known
While I have no intention to spend the money on a new Leica, I do appreciate that they still make high end Film cameras.
While overpriced (IMHO) their presence is still "Good for the sport".
Would I use a M7 if i had one? Of course, It's a camera.
Would it make me a better photographer, Or change the way I do things?
Absolutely not.
While overpriced (IMHO) their presence is still "Good for the sport".
Would I use a M7 if i had one? Of course, It's a camera.
Would it make me a better photographer, Or change the way I do things?
Absolutely not.
Neare
Well-known
So Leica film bodies aren't compatible with colour film. Typical.
Wouter
Well-known
Better would it be if Leica invested in the development of something like digital film - that we are made to believe is technically impossible - so that we could continue to use all that equipment, not only the lenses.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Quite. It's a nice description, equally applicable to all film cameras of course, but hey, Leica aren't going to say, "Go buy a second-hand Olympus." They're trying to promote their film cameras (surely not!) but there are those who can never resist a swipe at Leica.
The fact that it's applicable to all film cameras seemed to me to be related to their web-master's weakness for 8x10 inch cameras and printing-out paper: the fact that you're dealing with tangible things, instead of patterns of electrical fields, does make halide photography different.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Hang on. You're trying to hunt with the dogs and run with the hare here. Leica advertising is designed to persuade stupid people to buy overpriced cameras -- and you have three of those overpriced cameras. Also, if your Pentax is just as good, why do you own the Leicas? What was your comment if not a gratuitous swipe?
As for "You are welcome to define your Art by the equipment you use. I'll define mine by the images I produce, thank you," that's a gratuitous insult. I don't "define my art" with reference to anything very much, except possibly earning a living with my cameras. You're the one who brought up that concept: you're the one who wants to spend the thread talking about your cameras, a Pentax and three Leicas so far. I've not even mentioned any of mine, because there's no need.
Finally, if you define your photograph by your pictures, why have you had 'innumerable' Leicas? Why not just use them to take pictures instead of constantly trading them?
Cheers,
R.
N
Nikon Bob
Guest
Personally, it is a good bit of advertising cool-aid.
Bob
Bob
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I think the reason we're 'made to believe' it is that it is, in fact, impossible; or at least, sufficiently difficult that no-one has ever succeeded in doing it. An M9 is jammed full of electronics. Try to fit that into the space available for film in a real Leica, and couple the 'wind-on', etc., and I suspect that it's very difficult indeed.
Also, from a crass commercial viewpoint, why bother? When you can sell M9s as fast as you can make 'em, why spend very large sums on developing something that you don't have enough staff to make?
IF it could be done, I'd have expected someone else to have done it by now. One apparently trivial problem that proved very difficult, for example, is that the space between the cassette and the film-gate varies from camera to camera.
Of course, Leica did offer a film/digital SLR, with a removable back, but look at the size. Also, the precision needed for locating the sensor means that 'digital film', casually stuffed into the gate, is unlikely to be precisely enough located.
Cheers,
R.
AndySig
Established
I've often wondered if the abandonment of the Leica digital back idea occurred too quickly. The trend in electronics is to get smaller. It is not difficult to imagine a digital back which could be swapped for the back door on M cameras. I'm sure that, if developed, such a device would be a massive hit.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
They couldn't get the sensor any more, and it wasn't worth redesigning for a new sensor. At least, that's the Party Line, and I have no reason to disbelieve it.
Cheers,
R.
dave lackey
Veteran
_mark__
Well-known
I hate everything Leica cameras have come to represent I'm almost embarrased to carry one but I still use mine every day for the lenses. That Paragraph from Leica is very nostalgic.
rogerzilla
Well-known
How do you think colour film works?