rvaubel
Well-known
Harry Lime There is a lot of pent up demand out there among pros for a high quality said:
tkluck
Well-known
IGMeanwell said:
Winchester ran an ad like that years ago. An old group picture of a couple dozen Texas Rangers, armed to the teeth, ready to fight the forces of evil. All but one of them were holding Winchester rifles. (probably got his salsa from New-York City...)
Way back in the late sixties people paid me to take pictures. I gained a bit of experience with Leicas. I was low chicken in the pecking order and nobody else wanted to use them. Pros droped range finders like a hot potato.
rvaubel
Well-known
Simon Larby said:Funny to read this a few of my PJ friends were debating this the other night in Bangkok and we split 50/50 in our preferences.
.
I started high school in 1960 and jumped on the SLR bandwagon right away with the puchase of a Beseler Topcon. I used that camera until 1964 when I went to UC Berkeley just in time for the Free Speech Movement and the Vietnam anti-war protests. I was the Chief Photographer for the Daily CAL , the largest (25000 circ) daily college newspaper. I traded in my Topcon for the newly introduced, compact Nikormat. With just 3 small prime focus lenses, I covered events for 4 years. Remember this was before zoom lenses were any good. So my kit consisted of the 105mm Nikor (very compact) the 58mm F1.8 and an off brand 28mm (can't remember). The point is, this kit was about the same size as my current RD1 outfit. I was extremely daring in those days and the mobility provided by my kit was useful.
Flash forword 30 years and I got my N90 with about 5Kg of zoom lenses. I hadn't really noticed this creeping weight and bulk issue but.....
Flash forword to 2005 with my new Canon 20D and 10kg of zooms and primes.
By now I have multiple camera bags for different uses. There is no way everything could fit in an actually camera bag. Takes a Pelican for that.
Thats when I bought the RD1 on a whim. Little did I know that I was actually returning to my roots of lightweight, compact kit. Much to my surprise, have found that for day to day use, the rangefinder suits my needs better than the DSLR. No, I'm not selling my 20D, its a great camera when its needed.
I expect that as PJs become aacquainted with a digital rangefinder, they will see what I have seen. The M8 will not displace the DSLR's of the world. The M8 will serve as a suppliment, not a replacement for the DSLR. Some will use it more than others for their professional work, but I think that the M8 will be a part of many PJ's kit at least for personal use.
Rex
S
Simon Larbalestier
Guest
Rex
i'd see it as a suppliment to my film cameras but until it's in my hands and i've completed some projects with it - i think it's a bit early to say.....
i'd see it as a suppliment to my film cameras but until it's in my hands and i've completed some projects with it - i think it's a bit early to say.....
rvaubel
Well-known
Simon Larby said:
I do film too. My little bio ommitted the fact that I have and use 3 CV rangefinder bodies that I use with my M mount lenses. That's actually how I got back into rangefinders. What was surprising is that the RD1 not only supplanted my film useage but also that of my SLR.
The film vs digital thing is actually a seperate issue for me. My basic feeling is for any commercial uses, film is dead. But that doesn't mean that film will die. It will just become a artistic, craft thing that will always have users. I don't expect to close my darkroom anytime soon but I don't use it very often anymore. However, nothing beats holding a real negative in your hand and printing a real print in a real darkroom. Unfortunetly, it takes hours of setup and cleanup and about 4 stiff drinks to get through it.
Rex
Harry Lime
Practitioner
I don't work as a PJ for a paper or agency, but instead shoot documentary type work, photo-essays and cover events and people as required.
This spring I shot a photo-essay on post Katrina New Orleans. I took two M bodies with 35&50mm lenses and my Xpan. I left the 5D at home and was glad I did. At the moment NO is a pretty rough place and being able to work without a camera bag and with a camera that looks like a point and shoot or antique that could disappear in to my jacket was at times vital to my continued health. In a place like that a fancy DSLR with a 24-70mm zoom sticks out like a sore thumb and screams: "Hey look at me! I'm a walking cash machine!"
Another observation I have made is that some people get spooked by a large SLR, even if it is mounting a compact prime. The clack of the shutter, whirring of the motor (not to mention flash) all seem to contribute to them being 'on camera', thus making them feel ill at ease, especially in close quarters. I've never had that problem when I'm shooting with my M's. There is something very disarming about them, perhaps it's their old world charm or small size, but whatever it is people do not seem nearly as threatened by them as by a SLR.
I also find the amount and type of noise generated by an SLR can be very intrusive and even offensive, when working in a delicate, intimate situation. The subdued 'snick' of a well oiled M is very inoffensive and non-intrusive. A few years ago I was in Germany and attended a service in a large cathedral. Standing on the side I was able to discretely take a few shots with my M7 at about 1/30th, without being noticed and intruding on the ceremony, which would have been a very offensive thing to do. Try doing that with an SLR/DSLR.
All I can say is that I pray nightly that Leica had the sense to properly seal the body against dust and moisture.
IGMeanwell
Well-known
I find it funny when someone says DSLRs with a zoom scream "hey look at me I am a walking cash machine"
When anyone who knows anything about cameras and sees that little red Leica badge knows what it is and how much they cost
being discrete is about your etiquette... I did an entire wedding with my D50 and two primes (no flash) ... the minister glowed about how little he noticed me and asked if I would be interested in doing any other of his ceremonies
granted a leica would have been quieter but your still a person holding a camera
its not like your a ninja with a 50mm
When anyone who knows anything about cameras and sees that little red Leica badge knows what it is and how much they cost
being discrete is about your etiquette... I did an entire wedding with my D50 and two primes (no flash) ... the minister glowed about how little he noticed me and asked if I would be interested in doing any other of his ceremonies
granted a leica would have been quieter but your still a person holding a camera
its not like your a ninja with a 50mm
canonetc
canonetc
I believe many PJ;s used the Leica for lens-quality as well as unobtrusiveness. It came from an era where you were forced to rely on your own compositional skill and visual reading of light instead of letting the camera do it for you. SLR's made things "easier" and "faster" (no need to use framelines, what you see is what you might get, plus a motordrive). With a digital RF from Leica, it could be a dream come true for many PJ's in today's digital media marketplace. You get the "purity" of the Golden Age of Journalism to supply today's digital demands.
Special M8 models could look like an M3....... or the Leica "O"...
Chris
canonetc
Special M8 models could look like an M3....... or the Leica "O"...
Chris
canonetc
David Murphy
Veteran
I was under the impression that photo journalists have pretty much been using Nikon (e.g. F) and then later Canon since about 1958. When did they ever use Leica's ? Before that I think they used press cameras. Was there ever a mass adoption of Leica by the news media anywhere at any time ? I doubt it.
I was at a lot of press conferences in the early 1970's (helping to shoot 16mm film) and the *only* still cameras I saw were Nikon F's. It was not a bias towards Nikon, it was total dominance by Nikon.
I was at a lot of press conferences in the early 1970's (helping to shoot 16mm film) and the *only* still cameras I saw were Nikon F's. It was not a bias towards Nikon, it was total dominance by Nikon.
rvaubel
Well-known
David Murphy said:
David
Your right, the Nikon F came out in 1959 and within a few short years totally dominated photojornalism. When I started high school in 1960 I was the first kid to have an SLR, a Beseler Topcon D. I used that camera for the school newspaper, yearbook as well as my own personal use. I sold the schools medium and large format stuff to purchase a Durst 606 enlarger and other 35mm equipment.
When I started college at Cal Berkeley four years later, their was still a few Speed Graphics, but the 35mm SLR had basically taken over. As the Vietnam War wound up, the Nikon F became an icon of photojornalism.
But in the previous war, the Korean War, the icon was the rangefinder. David Douglas Duncan and other war journalist made sure of that, Ironically, with Nikon lenses discovered by Duncan a few months before in Japan! But still, rangefinders where the only tool suitable for wartime conditions.
If Leica's M8 lives up to expectations, I wouldn't be surprised to see one in a lot pf pros bag of tricks.
Rex
Going further back to WWII, the rangefinder was also the best choice in many situations. Again, ironically the German Leica was the camera of choice. The Soviets were cranking out copies of rangefinder cameras thruout the war and continued on till the end of the cold war.
Meanwhile, back in civilian-land most of the photags were using their Speed Graphics because size was not important. Contact printing was used more often for speeds sake and you could crop an enlargement radically to get a "telephoto" shot. Also, remember, as always, editors always want more "megapixels" than they need! Basically you had to be a bit of a rebel to use a rangefinder but there were plenty off them.
Today, the case for the rangefinder can be made because the shear weight and bulk of a fully equipped DSLR kit is getting overwheming. The fact is, some combat photoghraphers are using Pointn'shoots as there main camera! In fact, its gotten to the point that almost all photoghraphers take a Pointn'shoot with them wherever they go.
I don't need to take an extra camera with me when I go out with my rangefinder, My bag is small, a camera and a couple lenses. Just the ticket for the working pro or PJ in a lot of situations.
rvaubel
Well-known
David Murphy said:
David
Your right, the Nikon F came out in 1959 and within a few short years totally dominated photojornalism. When I started high school in 1960 I was the first kid to have an SLR, a Beseler Topcon D. I used that camera for the school newspaper, yearbook as well as my own personal use. I sold the schools medium and large format stuff to purchase a Durst 606 enlarger and other 35mm equipment.
When I started college at Cal Berkeley four years later, their was still a few Speed Graphics, but the 35mm SLR had basically taken over. As the Vietnam War wound up, the Nikon F became an icon of photojornalism.
But in the previous war, the Korean War, the icon was the rangefinder. David Douglas Duncan and other war journalist made sure of that, Ironically, with Nikon lenses discovered by Duncan a few months before in Japan! But still, rangefinders where the only tool suitable for wartime conditions.
Going further back to WWII, the rangefinder was also the best choice in many situations. Again, ironically the German Leica was the camera of choice. The Soviets were cranking out copies of rangefinder cameras thruout the war and continued on till the end of the cold war.
Meanwhile, back in civilian-land most of the photags were using their Speed Graphics because size was not important. Contact printing was used more often for speeds sake and you could crop an enlargement radically to get a "telephoto" shot. Also, remember, as always, editors always want more "megapixels" than they need! Basically you had to be a bit of a rebel to use a rangefinder but there were plenty off them.
Today, the case for the rangefinder can be made because the shear weight and bulk of a fully equipped DSLR kit is getting overwheming. The fact is, some combat photoghraphers are using Pointn'shoots as there main camera! In fact, its gotten to the point that almost all photoghraphers take a Pointn'shoot with them wherever they go.
I don't need to take an extra camera with me when I go out with my rangefinder, My bag is small, a camera and a couple lenses. Just the ticket for the working pro or PJ in a lot of situations.
VinceC
Veteran
I was doing newspaper work in the late 1980s and was overwhelmed by the ever-increasing size of professional SLRs, which was why I rebelled and went backwards to a rangefinder outfit. One of the driving factors was, I carried two and four to six lenses and carried my camera back all the time, on duty and off, and my back was starting to go out in my late 20s. Before the switch to digital, a lot of photographers were using only FM2s or Olympus OMs with a few prime lenses in order to save weight (and their backs).
The main reason I liked RFs (and continue to use them) is that they don't intimidate the person/people being photographed. They have very small size and yet are at least as capable as SLRs in 90 percent of photojournalism situations. And yes, I'm the crazed soccer dad out there taking pictures of his kids on weekends with an RF, a 135mm lens and lots of prefocusing.
The main reason I liked RFs (and continue to use them) is that they don't intimidate the person/people being photographed. They have very small size and yet are at least as capable as SLRs in 90 percent of photojournalism situations. And yes, I'm the crazed soccer dad out there taking pictures of his kids on weekends with an RF, a 135mm lens and lots of prefocusing.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Good... glad to hear it.ywenz said:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Harry Lime said:
It probably is the other way around. I've been taking photographs in African national parks for more than 15 years now, and the thing that really draws attention is using a lens that is shorter than 300 mm. You should have heard the number of comment that I got when pulling out a Leica M beside my (D)SLR. It ranged from: "can you get the shot with that old thing?" to "you can borrow my second body with my other 500 if you want"...
Greater Kudu in evening light
Last edited:
S
Socke
Guest
jaapv said:
Never was on a safari, but as far as I'm concerned it takes more than cojones to shoot a closeup of a lion or rhino with a 90
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Rhino is fine, I have walked to within 2 m of them, but Lion- well, they walk wto within 50 cm of you as long as you are in a (totally openSocke said:Never was on a safari, but as far as I'm concerned it takes more than cojones to shoot a closeup of a lion or rhino with a 90
) vehicle, but on foot:maybe better not closer that 15 m.(sorry, I poste Old Scrappy before...)
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
This one was on foot. I didn't dare to come closer than 200 mm on an APS sized DSLR (=300 equivalent):
Young male on Kill, North Luanga, Zambia
I can't wait to try out my Noflexar 400 on Visoflex and M8....
Young male on Kill, North Luanga, Zambia
I can't wait to try out my Noflexar 400 on Visoflex and M8....
Last edited:
V
varjag
Guest
With Leica prices growing thus fast, even Leicaphiles often have no idea how much they cost todayIGMeanwell said:
But seriously, I think you overestimate camera expertise of an average thug. A Leica (esp. a brassed one) looks far less expensive than these huge, pro, shiny clicky Canikons.
Nachkebia
Well-known
Check this out, http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/ricoh_grd_samples/
Yammie, M8 would be a blessing with my 21mm biogon
Yammie, M8 would be a blessing with my 21mm biogon
amateriat
We're all light!
For a lot of the folks on the other side of the lens, size often equates expense.IGMeanwell said:
See above.
To a degree. IMO, SLRs (film or digital) are a handicap in these instances, but hardly impossible to work with.
Again, IMO, the RF leaves one less thing to sweat being discreet over.
- Barrett