Leica's view on film

[Messsucherkamera]

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.

"Minimal at best??"

If that is truly your opinion, it would seem to me to be the result of one of four scenarios (or a combination thereof) -

1: Your technique is slipshod, inept and/or erratic;
2: You have an eye that is undiscerning in the extreme;
3: You have the visual acuity of an Indonesian Short Nosed Fruit Bat;
4: You are a writer for that bastion of the avaricious and tightfisted known as Consumer Reports.

 

[Trius]

The degree of emotion surrounding Leica-centred threads must surely keep any psychologists on this forum quite entertained. Or despairing.

 

[splitimageview]

That's it. I'm going digital now.

 

[ajuk]

So I wonder what would Leica call the M7 replacement now?

 

[mojobebop]

i've used a few leicas; m2-4-6-7. my favourite was the 7, next the 4. i alternate between the 4, & nikons, f-2-3-5.

i'm better w/nikons percentage wise. might be because i've never gotten a diopter for the leica. i also shoot mostly 28mm, so i'm using a external viewfinder which also needs a diopter.
i love both but the leica is special. i hope to one day feel as comfortable with it. it's more of a learning process. i think they are worth the money

 

[wolves3012]

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.

Spot on or not, I don't see anything out of the ordinary there. A manufacturer trying to push a product by trying to create a justification for something expensive that most won't actually *need*. Typical marketing waffle that says nothing of substance.

 

[kokoshawnuff]

For me, looking through a rangefinder and composing is a different experience than looking through a slr. When you see what your eyes see (rangefinders) not what the lens sees (slr) there is more mystery—and therefore anticipation—as to the final result (when considering d.o.f. and focus).

I think in this statement leica is pretending that only Leica M cameras can use Leica M glass (which is the one thing that doesn't need marketing help these days), which would be enough for me to buy a leica without question if I was an entry level consumer that had never heard of the other options out there. Knowing better, I could of course get the same quality results from a voigtlander R4A and leica lenses as I would from an M7 and leica glass, but I'm not going to enjoy shooting the Voigtlander as much the Leica because of feel alone (thats me though).

 

[f6andBthere]

If you're going to quote a piece of Leica marketing fluff as the premise for a thread about why film is wonderful you're asking for an argument IMO.

Film is great and has it's place firmly cemented in photography for numerous reasons but I'd prefer to read such nostalgic hyperbole from Kodak to be truthful.

But if this sort of misty eyed stuff makes a few more deep pocketed souls pony up for a new M7 or MP good luck to Leica I say!

 

[RAnder4370]

I've always felt that the aesthetics of the particular camera that I'm using at the time affect the way I approach the image I'm going to make. Sometimes it doesn't matter what you use, it could be an iPhone for example. But they all bring something to the shot with them. I love shooting with Liecas because of the aesthetics of them for sure.

 

[philosomatographer]

"Minimal at best??"

If that is truly your opinion, it would seem to me to be the result of one of four scenarios (or a combination thereof) -

1: Your technique is slipshod, inept and/or erratic;
2: You have an eye that is undiscerning in the extreme;
3: You have the visual acuity of an Indonesian Short Nosed Fruit Bat;
4: You are a writer for that bastion of the avaricious and tightfisted known as Consumer Reports.

As a user of several 35mm and larger camera systems here, including likely the highest-performance M-mount lens of them all - the Voigtländer Heliar 50mm f/3.5 - I have to chime in here and say that the differences are indeed minimal.

I really like the Leica M-mount system, but automatically and blindly believing that every single photo produced with this system is of superior quality is hogwash, and a little bit sad.

There are many lenses and cameras (35mm) from other manufacturers that equal and exceed the performance of Leica gear - open your eyes man! This has been documented over and over, and my experience certainly supports this.

Pretty much all good 35mm systems are alike - live wit it.