Should i remain a Leica virgin?

[Godfrey]

... Expense or complexity of the equipment is meaningless. ...

Um, the complexity of the equipment isn't meaningless, but it might be less important to some folks than others.

I find equipment that is overly complex to operate is a distraction, so I gravitate to equipment that can be operated simply and easily. That doesn't say "lacks features" or is some Luddite vision of making photographs only with bone simple, manual cameras. What it means is that the features support what I do, I can learn them quickly and remember how to use them easily.

This sense of ease in use so that I can focus on what I want to do rather than on the camera is why I choose the Leica, the Hasselblad, the GXR, my computer, etc. They are not simple, but they present the simple set of features I need to do what I want easily and without distraction.

Expense ... I agree, that's meaningless.

G

 

[jcrutcher]

You're shooting a fine camera and great lenses. It would be up to you if you think you'll improve your shots with a Leica, especially since your work is outstanding. My 2 cents worth is be prepared to fall into a "GAs" culture with Leica. You'll enjoy every step of the way however there is a chance (and I would say a good chance since after one year you're thinking about this) that you'll get addicted. I shot Canon for 3 years moving up to a IDs III and all the great L lenses, then I got the Leica bug (3 years ago). Started with M6 and a 50mm Summicron DR lens. Today I own 50 Leica bodies and 43 Leica Lenses. Do I love them? Yes did I have to go crazy? NO. It's a hobby and as you would know if you look at my work I'm not very good but getting better. This year I set a budget much lower than years past, and what did I do? shot the whole wad on one camera system and 5 lenses. Now I'm done for the year and I'm actually enjoying it more. So again my 2 cents worth is like any hobby it can overcome you, that could be ok if you have the resources or it could destroy you if you don't. Either way it will not improve your photos to the degree that makes it all make sense. Good Luck
Jim

 

[rkm]

Thanks, everyone.

It's kind of comforting to hear that people with a lot of gear don't really feel that the gear is all that important.

I probably have $30k of guitars. I make my living as a musician. None of the guitars can do it all, and none if them can make music by themselves. The greatest frontier is really improvement of the self. Making a living might require that I own a bunch of these things, but finding a voice might demand a more minimalist approach. So many parallels between music and photography.

I haven't really allowed myself to have other passions, because I know I can't afford it. It's quite a large mental leap for me to consider spending a chunk of change on something that isn't music related. But strangely, I'm spending more creative energy on photography than music at the moment. I'm actually looking around the room at guitar equipment thinking, "I could sell that and buy an M6, and that one could be a Hasselblad".

I'm on dangerous ground.

 

[Vics]

Dangerous ground indeed. I'm a guitar player too, though no longer professional due to unforeseen physical circumstances. There are six guitars under my bed in their cases. I should sell them but I can't. I'm 68, and I've had my Gibson Byrdland since I was 17. Just can't let them go, even to buy photo gear. Don't you envy Mike Stern doing it all with a Telecaster? You can make any kind of picture you want with a Nikon FE and a few lenses. You remember Steve McCurry's "Afgan Girl" on the front of the National Geographic? Nikon FM with the 105/2.5. Well, and Kodachrome 200.

 

[rkm]

Dangerous ground indeed. I'm a guitar player too, though no longer professional due to unforeseen physical circumstances. There are six guitars under my bed in their cases. I should sell them but I can't. I'm 68, and I've had my Gibson Byrdland since I was 17. Just can't let them go, even to buy photo gear. Don't you envy Mike Stern doing it all with a Telecaster? You can make any kind of picture you want with a Nikon FE and a few lenses. You remember Steve McCurry's "Afgan Girl" on the front of the National Geographic? Nikon FM with the 105/2.5. Well, and Kodachrome 200.

That Byrdland must be an extraordinary thing of beauty. Closest I have is an L4CES that I've had for 20 years (bought when I was 20). It's turned a beautiful honey colour over the years. I've been thinking about selling it to buy an L5, which was always the primary object of jazz guitar lust, but I'm not sure I could do it... Plus my wife won't let me... And she's usually right.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Instead of buying a new (to you) camera, set another goal first? Maybe put together a book, using blurb or some other on-line company. Or make a slide show, set to... wait for it... music! Put it on youtube and send people to it. Well just ideas.

Camera gear is appealing. And you'll get lots of support to indulge in buying new this and new that. But let the art drive this. If you knew someone who had been playing guitar for six months and they told you that they had $30,000 of guitars, would you be impressed or dismayed? I think I said this before in this thread- the camera will find you when you have a reason to be using it.

Now having given you a reason to not buy anything at the moment, I'll let you in on my secret: great cameras *will* make you a better photographer. Or they will make the process of photographing so smooth and pleasant that any skills you have will be manifest. I bet you have guitars like that, which practically play themselves? I did photography for a decade starting in my teens, then moved away from it. I came back to it over a decade ago, and have been through maybe fifteen cameras since then. 6 digital ones, a bunch of film cameras. When I got back to film, I quickly returned to my old favorite, the TLR. I went through four different cameras to get to the one I use now, a Rolleiflex 2.8C Xenotar. After a couple of years using it, I have no interest in getting another TLR, and when I go shoot with it, well, it's like hanging out with an old friend where everything is smooth and easy.

And maybe I shouldn't tell you this, but a few months ago I bought a Leica M3. I actually bought a Leica CL first since I had one in my twenties. But there wasn't anything special going on, I had a chance to play with an M3, and was reminded of a brief period in my early twenties when I used a friend's M3. Maybe you have an old girlfriend or fling like this, someone that you knew briefly but just always stayed in your head decades later? Well, that friend's M3 was like that, and I figured it was time. And like that girl decades ago, the M3 is special for me, where every move is met with the right response.

Well, still, learn your scales first. Don't be that dork with $30,000 of guitars who can't play. Rolleiflexes, Leicas- the pinnacle of their niches. There are lots of niches out there, though, and reasons for people to use all the variety of cameras that exist.

The Nikon FE is a great camera for its niche, by the way. Your father had good taste in cameras.

 

[rhl-oregon]

I probably have $30k of guitars....I'm actually looking around the room at guitar equipment thinking, "I could sell that and buy an M6, and that one could be a Hasselblad".

As another guitarist, I'll ask: how many? Will you miss the one that could fund the M or the Hassy? (And we haven't even begun to mention amps, but you must have a few. The L4 needs one, e.g.). Or will you lose gigs because guitar X gets converted into a Leica? The remark about feeling more creative energy in photography than music offers a rationale that any guitarist who knows an L5 will do what a Tele cannot & vice versa can understand. The Nikon is working well in your hands; an M or Hassy will work differently, and probably inspire different visual genres or approaches for years to come.

I have 6 guitars; each has its sonic & haptic niche. My Heritage 575 feels / sounds great through the AER, the RI 69 Tele sounds / feels best through an Ampeg Mercury, etc. Ive kept the guitars/amps separate from the cameras in terms of desire and accommodation--though my kids are grown, unlike your pretty ones, and that makes a diff in priorities and indulgences. Yet after all, we're talking about converting one guitar into one more camera. Doesn't have to be a slippery slope.

Btw I think there's a Show Off Your Guitar thread somewhere in the depths of RFF....

 

[rkm]

I'm glad to see so many guitarists here.

rhl-oregon, that $30k estimate is referring to guitars and amps. I have 6 guitars that all do different things, and 5 amps. I would probably sell an amp before a guitar.

I've pretty much settled on the idea that I'll defer the Leica question for now. I'll buy an Nikkor AIS 28/2.8 to add to the 35, 50, and 105 and stick with that set up alone for at least the rest of the year.

As Lynn pointed out, me not bonding with the 35 is not a question of gear quality, but of me developing an eye for a wider focal length.

I still think I might enjoy, or even prefer other cameras... Leica, Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, even something digital... but I spent many years playing a strat before I tried anything else. I shouldn't be in too much of a hurry.

For the guitar brethren among us:
Strat into Marshall JTM50
Tele into JMI AC30
'56 RI Les Paul into Tweed Deluxe (Lanois!)
L4CESN into Tone King Metropolitan
'59 RI ES-335 into Matchless HC-30
or mix-n-match any of the above.
Larrivee L-19 Acoustic (really want a Martin OM or a Collings OM right now)

 

[Roger Hicks]

With the absurd notion that the OP's question and title had anything to do with Madonna's "Like A Virgin" song.



You want to bounce around with "m'lud" and other buffoonery, your name is Falstaff.

G

Dear Godfrey,

The name "Leicavirgin" has been used twice -- check the members' lists -- and it hardly strikes me as an "absurd notion" that this was derived from the song. The idea that the phrase was not used with ironic humorous intent struck me as even more unlikely than your interpretation, but it appears I was wrong. Then again, I play with words all the time, and am sometimes surprised when others don't.

Cheers,

R. .

 

[Roger Hicks]

Provided we' d tell you it's not the camera, would you listen?
Provided we' d tell you you don't need a project to take pictures, would you care?

Expense or complexity of the equipment is meaningless.
M-E-A-N-I-N-G-L-E-S-S
Camera dealers and Leica fanboys tell different but we all know why.

Eh? The difference between simplicity and complexity ain't meaningless. I have several Nikon Fs (simple) and a D70 (complex). I much prefer the Fs.

Nor is expense meaningless. It's the difference between what you can afford easily; what you can afford if you want it badly enough; and what you can't afford at all. The last is why I (and many others) don't have all the cameras we'd like, be they Leica or any other. If I could easily afford it, I'd buy a D800. But I'm sure as hell not going to sell other cameras to buy one.

Cheers,

R.

 

[thejameskendall]

I got the Leica bug (3 years ago). Started with M6 and a 50mm Summicron DR lens. Today I own 50 Leica bodies and 43 Leica Lenses.

Blimey! That's absolutely crazy. Still sounds like you've enjoyed the collecting. I'm very envious.

 

[thegman]

Provided we' d tell you it's not the camera, would you listen?
Provided we' d tell you you don't need a project to take pictures, would you care?

Expense or complexity of the equipment is meaningless.
M-E-A-N-I-N-G-L-E-S-S
Camera dealers and Leica fanboys tell different but we all know why.

Can't agree with this.

In cameras, there does seem to be a correlation between the expense of a camera, and it's quality. Some cameras buck the trend, either due to collectors pushing the price up, or user/collectors ignoring great cameras so the prices go down.

Also, what might be an insignificant amount of money to one person, may not be for someone else.

Complexity does matter to me. The more I use cameras I am reminded of a term I learned in computing. KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid. I find in many fields, cameras, computing, auto-flush toilets, if you ignore that principle, you'll almost certainly make something crap.

 

[DougK]

I'm glad to see so many guitarists here.

rhl-oregon, that $30k estimate is referring to guitars and amps. I have 6 guitars that all do different things, and 5 amps. I would probably sell an amp before a guitar.

I've pretty much settled on the idea that I'll defer the Leica question for now. I'll buy an Nikkor AIS 28/2.8 to add to the 35, 50, and 105 and stick with that set up alone for at least the rest of the year.

As Lynn pointed out, me not bonding with the 35 is not a question of gear quality, but of me developing an eye for a wider focal length.

I still think I might enjoy, or even prefer other cameras... Leica, Rolleiflex, Hasselblad, even something digital... but I spent many years playing a strat before I tried anything else. I shouldn't be in too much of a hurry.

Seems like a wise choice to me.

 

[torn]

can always get one and then sell it without any loss

in my experience i found them highly overrated

 

[Sparrow]

Dear Godfrey,

The name "Leicavirgin" has been used twice -- check the members' lists -- and it hardly strikes me as an "absurd notion" that this was derived from the song. The idea that the phrase was not used with ironic humorous intent struck me as even more unlikely than your interpretation, but it appears I was wrong. Then again, I play with words all the time, and am sometimes surprised when others don't.

Cheers,

R. .

... it makes one wonder what they make of the "Summar of Love" thread

 

[henri klein]

Eh? The difference between simplicity and complexity ain't meaningless. I have several Nikon Fs (simple) and a D70 (complex). I much prefer the Fs.

Nor is expense meaningless. It's the difference between what you can afford easily; what you can afford if you want it badly enough; and what you can't afford at all. The last is why I (and many others) don't have all the cameras we'd like, be they Leica or any other. If I could easily afford it, I'd buy a D800. But I'm sure as hell not going to sell other cameras to buy one.

Cheers,

R.

Meaningless in regard to the impact of one's photography. Not meaningless in general.

 

[Alpsman]

Nah, get yerself a Nikon S2 instead of a Leica. 100% viewfinder, rewindingkrank instead of a knop & easyer filmloading.
I really like the look of a Leica, they look really fine. But the way how to load film, the small rewindingknob & at leas the pigexpensive (schweineteuren) lenses are holding me back.
Just found a fine M3 (M3 is the only one I want to have) for 450€ in Vienna, but I will resist, yes I will resist.:bang:

 

[Roger Hicks]

Meaningless in regard to the impact of one's photography. Not meaningless in general.

Not really.

First, it's easier to use a camera that's, um, easier to use.

Second, most people find that there is a certain relationship between the cameras you use and the pictures you take, because different cameras encourage different ways of working and seeing.

Third, if you can't afford a camera, you can't buy it and use it.

This all seems pretty relevant to the impact of or on one's own photography.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Nah, get yerself a Nikon S2 instead of a Leica. 100% viewfinder, rewindingkrank instead of a knop & easyer filmloading.
I really like the look of a Leica, they look really fine. But the way how to load film, the small rewindingknob & at leas the pigexpensive (schweineteuren) lenses are holding me back.
Just found a fine M3 (M3 is the only one I want to have) for 450€ in Vienna, but I will resist, yes I will resist.:bang:

Sure. Go for a restrictive and needlessly complicated lens mount with a very small selection of lenses. Why not?

Cheers,

R.

 

[Alpsman]

Sure. Go for a restrictive and needlessly complicated lens mount with a very small selection of lenses. Why not?

Cheers,

R.

How much lenses do one need to get lucky? Which lenses do you miss for a Nikon S2? And, for me, the "complicated" lens mount semms to be easyer to use instead of a threadmount.