Hephaestus
Established
I am a street and domestic photographer, and I have been shooting almost exclusively with rangefinders for the last several years. I have experimented with a wide variety of equipment, taking tens of thousands of images while working within several different contexts and cultures. During that time, I have developed some opinions about shooting with the M system which I’d like to share with you here.
In no particular order...
On selecting a lens for softness or glow:
In the digital age, I don’t understand preferring a lens because of its softness, vignetting, lower contrast, or glow. It is much more satisfying to go from a sharp high contrast image to a soft glowy one by using software than it is to make a softer glowy image sharper and more contrasty. Modern coatings and optical engineering should not be underestimated! If you want a special look to your images, buy a modern lens and a copy of Nik Software's Color Efex Pro; with this program, you can add glow, vignetting, increase definition, soften, desaturate, etc. in a non-destructive way and in seconds! Obviously, this does not apply if you are intending to print directly from film.
On Leica lenses vs. Zeiss or Voigtlander:
Some Leica lenses are special in that they are different in kind from the offerings of Zeiss or Voigtlander. To me, these are the Summilux 21mm, 24mm and 75mm, the Tri-Elmar classic and Wide-Angle Tri-Elmar (if you need the flexibility of multiple focal lengths within one barrel). To that list it is arguable that the current 50mm Summilux should be added, as it produces image quality differing in degree from the competition at f.1.4 to the extent that it approaches a difference in kind. The other offerings which I have tried differ only from the Zeiss and Voigltnader offerings by a very minor difference of degree. While I was loyal to Leica glass when I started shooting rangefinders, I’ve since found that I am generally just as happy, and sometimes happier, shooting with Zeiss or Voigtlander lenses.
If you’re like me, you might actually find that Voigtlander lenses will often produce superior results for you because you are more inclined to use them casually. While I try not to worry about protecting my gear, I am less concerned with protecting my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 than I am my 35mm Summilux ASPH. As such I am more inclined to keep my Voigtlander lens out with me and conveniently at hand, or maybe shoved in an unzippered jacket pocket and without the cap to fumble with, and so it makes better images by being accessible when I need it. Its much easier to use something casually when you can more easily afford to replace it!
On large apertures:
For me, a fast wide lens is far more useful than a fast normal or telephoto lens. If I need the speed it is usually because I am struggling to get enough light rather than to add bokeh, and a 24mm is far more likely to yield decent results at 1/20th than a 50mm at the same shutter speed. Even negating camera shake: I’ve lost dozens of potentially good images either because of a focusing error or because I missed the right moment while trying to focus precisely. Normal and telephoto lenses are tedious to use at large apertures, and that takes a lot of the fun out of photography for me.
On adding light:
I’ve heard flash photography described as visual slap in the face, and I’m inclined to agree. I try to be as discreet as possible, and flash is the antithesis of this. However, if I must add light then I strongly prefer to add it by using dimable and continuously on LED light pannel, such as the LitePannel Micro, then from a flash unit. Its less abrupt and I find it also often blends better with the uncontrolled lighting in a scene. This also allows me to see ahead of time how the scene is going to look with the added light. For even better results, I throw the panel on top of a GorillaPod and place it wherever I can make the bast use of it. While not as powerful as a flash: there is no delay while the light recharges, and your subjects also won’t know the precise moment when you take an image. You also won’t get people immediately protesting that they had their eyes closed, so you’re less likely to get subsequent images of open mouthes.
The Softrelease:
I highly recommend using a Softrelease or equivalent. I have found that when shooting at 1/60th or less, my image quality will almost certainly improve more by correctly using a soft release than it will by, for example, upgrading from a Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 lens to a Leica 50mm Summilux ASPH: what a bargain! Using a soft release also makes the shutter more accessible when shooting from an unconventional position, such as from the hip. Also, If you want to make your camera look battered, then you can also rub the finish off of the soft-release without effecting the resale value of your precious rangefinder.
The leather half case:
If you’re planning on using your digital rangefinder on the street, or anywhere in a less developed country, I highly recommend adding a basic black half-case which covers the LCD to your camera. In addition to adding some physical protection from bumps and scrapes, It’ll make your camera look older and more amateur, and that means people will pay less attention to it. This provides at least two benefits: it will help to keep your subjects more relaxed, and it’ll attract less attention from people who might consider taking it from you. I’ve handed my M8 to strangers hundreds of times for group pictures, including in less developed countries like Cuba, India and Malawi where its value would have fed a family for years, and I suspect that I still have it because most or all of those people thought it was just a battered old film camera rather than an expensive modern digital. You can make it more stealthy still by scuffing up the half case, tapeing up the logo and writing on the body, and scraping some paint off of your soft release or removable Zeiss or Voigtlander lens hood: all while protecting the appearance and resale value of your precious rangefinder and lens body.
On equipment size:
My experience is that the quality of the moment captured in a portrait is often inversely proportional to the size of the camera that I use. Its harder to get people to relax and act naturally in the presence of any camera, so I try to put as little equipment between my subject and I as possible. As such: even though I like the results that the Noctilux, 75mm Summilux, and my beloved 24mm Summilux are capable of achieving, I am reluctant to use them if there is a reasonable alternative. Even though these items may seem very compact to an SLR shooter, they may still seem intrusive and intimidating to the people you are pointing them at! sometimes less really is more, and I find this often to be the case during casual portraiture.
_____
I hope that something I have written will prove interesting.
Good light and best regards,
Ryan
In no particular order...
On selecting a lens for softness or glow:
In the digital age, I don’t understand preferring a lens because of its softness, vignetting, lower contrast, or glow. It is much more satisfying to go from a sharp high contrast image to a soft glowy one by using software than it is to make a softer glowy image sharper and more contrasty. Modern coatings and optical engineering should not be underestimated! If you want a special look to your images, buy a modern lens and a copy of Nik Software's Color Efex Pro; with this program, you can add glow, vignetting, increase definition, soften, desaturate, etc. in a non-destructive way and in seconds! Obviously, this does not apply if you are intending to print directly from film.
On Leica lenses vs. Zeiss or Voigtlander:
Some Leica lenses are special in that they are different in kind from the offerings of Zeiss or Voigtlander. To me, these are the Summilux 21mm, 24mm and 75mm, the Tri-Elmar classic and Wide-Angle Tri-Elmar (if you need the flexibility of multiple focal lengths within one barrel). To that list it is arguable that the current 50mm Summilux should be added, as it produces image quality differing in degree from the competition at f.1.4 to the extent that it approaches a difference in kind. The other offerings which I have tried differ only from the Zeiss and Voigltnader offerings by a very minor difference of degree. While I was loyal to Leica glass when I started shooting rangefinders, I’ve since found that I am generally just as happy, and sometimes happier, shooting with Zeiss or Voigtlander lenses.
If you’re like me, you might actually find that Voigtlander lenses will often produce superior results for you because you are more inclined to use them casually. While I try not to worry about protecting my gear, I am less concerned with protecting my Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 than I am my 35mm Summilux ASPH. As such I am more inclined to keep my Voigtlander lens out with me and conveniently at hand, or maybe shoved in an unzippered jacket pocket and without the cap to fumble with, and so it makes better images by being accessible when I need it. Its much easier to use something casually when you can more easily afford to replace it!
On large apertures:
For me, a fast wide lens is far more useful than a fast normal or telephoto lens. If I need the speed it is usually because I am struggling to get enough light rather than to add bokeh, and a 24mm is far more likely to yield decent results at 1/20th than a 50mm at the same shutter speed. Even negating camera shake: I’ve lost dozens of potentially good images either because of a focusing error or because I missed the right moment while trying to focus precisely. Normal and telephoto lenses are tedious to use at large apertures, and that takes a lot of the fun out of photography for me.
On adding light:
I’ve heard flash photography described as visual slap in the face, and I’m inclined to agree. I try to be as discreet as possible, and flash is the antithesis of this. However, if I must add light then I strongly prefer to add it by using dimable and continuously on LED light pannel, such as the LitePannel Micro, then from a flash unit. Its less abrupt and I find it also often blends better with the uncontrolled lighting in a scene. This also allows me to see ahead of time how the scene is going to look with the added light. For even better results, I throw the panel on top of a GorillaPod and place it wherever I can make the bast use of it. While not as powerful as a flash: there is no delay while the light recharges, and your subjects also won’t know the precise moment when you take an image. You also won’t get people immediately protesting that they had their eyes closed, so you’re less likely to get subsequent images of open mouthes.
The Softrelease:
I highly recommend using a Softrelease or equivalent. I have found that when shooting at 1/60th or less, my image quality will almost certainly improve more by correctly using a soft release than it will by, for example, upgrading from a Voigtlander 50mm f1.5 lens to a Leica 50mm Summilux ASPH: what a bargain! Using a soft release also makes the shutter more accessible when shooting from an unconventional position, such as from the hip. Also, If you want to make your camera look battered, then you can also rub the finish off of the soft-release without effecting the resale value of your precious rangefinder.
The leather half case:
If you’re planning on using your digital rangefinder on the street, or anywhere in a less developed country, I highly recommend adding a basic black half-case which covers the LCD to your camera. In addition to adding some physical protection from bumps and scrapes, It’ll make your camera look older and more amateur, and that means people will pay less attention to it. This provides at least two benefits: it will help to keep your subjects more relaxed, and it’ll attract less attention from people who might consider taking it from you. I’ve handed my M8 to strangers hundreds of times for group pictures, including in less developed countries like Cuba, India and Malawi where its value would have fed a family for years, and I suspect that I still have it because most or all of those people thought it was just a battered old film camera rather than an expensive modern digital. You can make it more stealthy still by scuffing up the half case, tapeing up the logo and writing on the body, and scraping some paint off of your soft release or removable Zeiss or Voigtlander lens hood: all while protecting the appearance and resale value of your precious rangefinder and lens body.
On equipment size:
My experience is that the quality of the moment captured in a portrait is often inversely proportional to the size of the camera that I use. Its harder to get people to relax and act naturally in the presence of any camera, so I try to put as little equipment between my subject and I as possible. As such: even though I like the results that the Noctilux, 75mm Summilux, and my beloved 24mm Summilux are capable of achieving, I am reluctant to use them if there is a reasonable alternative. Even though these items may seem very compact to an SLR shooter, they may still seem intrusive and intimidating to the people you are pointing them at! sometimes less really is more, and I find this often to be the case during casual portraiture.
_____
I hope that something I have written will prove interesting.
Good light and best regards,
Ryan
Hephaestus
Established
Some thoughts on the M lenses I've owned:
Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 (plus screw-to-M adapter)
This is one of my favourite and most used lenses. I zone focus ahead of time, usually at f.4.5 or f5.6 which basically gets everything from a meter out to infinity, and I shoot it from the hip while still walking. Its small enough and forgiving enough that people seldom realize that I am photographing with it. While this lens looks better on the M8, it is also remarkably corrected on full frame.
Leica 16-18-21mm WATE f4.0
I find this lens so much less convenient than the Voightlander 15mm that it hardly gets used. I keep it because it produces better results on full frame than the Voigtlander. I suspect, though, that I would not replace this lens if I lost it. Its a phenomenal piece of engineering and I love the results, but its novelties seem narrowly applicable.
Leica 24mm Summilux ASPH. f1.4
I prefer this lens for indoor low light portraits because it is so forgiving. Its sharp right from f1.4. Its wide enough that I can often capture an indoor scene without having to back up against walls or lean back over furniture. It gives enough depth of field at f1.4 that I have some margin for error in focusing when I have to make the most of the available light. Its wide enough to allow these things, but not so wide that the perspective draws attention to itself. I love to photograph a cross a kitchen or cafe table, and I am aware of no better lens for this task. Even at the obscene price, I’d replace this lens if I lost it.
Zeiss 25mm Biogon f2.8
I like how this lens handles and it gives great results (I loved this lens with Provia 100F), but It doesn’t do what the 24mm Summilux does (I usually use conventional wides indoors and in low light). My copy also broke after taking a hard knock in the Hong Kong International Airport: the barrel separated. Despite that, it seemed very well constructed and I loved the metal hood (I had the round one).
Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f.1.4
I bought this lens for traveling: intending to sell it once I returned from 18 months abroad. Now that I’ve used it extensively, I don’t feel under-equipped at all when I mount this lens rather than the Summilux ASPH. Its reasonably priced, compact, and it uses an excellent metal hood. The focus ring is a little stiffer than I’d like and it uses 43mm rather than 46mm filters, but other than that I have no complaints. I stay conscious of the particulars of many of my lenses when I have them mounted: either of how I need to use the lens to get the best results from it, or of the tremendous amount that the lens may cost me and that I want to make sure I protect it. With this lens mounted, I’m not conscientious about it at all: and that’s about the highest praise I can give of a piece of photographic equipment.
Leica 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH. 35mm f1.4
I sold this lens quickly, and would not recommend it. Perhaps it exhibits some of that fabled Leica glow, but its also quite prone to flaring and I’ve lost several otherwise good images because of it. This lens is only to be used very selectively at maximum aperture.
Leica 35mm Summilux v.1 ASPH. f1.4
If money was no object and if I was only going to keep one lens, this would be it. There are very few circumstances where I can’t get the image I want with this lens. In fact, I have a feeling that I get a higher percentage of “keeper” images when I stick to using just this one lens than I do when I try to specialize my kit and I start thinking about which focal length might be ideal. While the lens can be pressed to flare, it is generally optically excellent. I wish the hood was metal rather than plastic as I’ve cracked two now, but this is really my only complaint about the lens. Please note that I have not tried the newest ASPH. model.
Voigtlander Nocton 40mm f1.4
I have a hard time making a case for this lens over the Voigtlander 35mm f.1.4. It’s cheaper than and optically as good as the 35mm , but for me the more classic focal length and the ability to frame more precisely on modern M’s makes the slightly wider lens worth the extra cost.
Leica 50mm E60 Noctilux f1.0
The best photograph I’ve taken so far was made with this lens, and the image could not have been made with a lens of lessor aperture, but I sold it because I find it to very narrowly ideally suited. It is very difficult to take upstaged portraits with this lens at maximum aperture because of the extremely limited depth of field, and so I’ve lost several would-be good photographs because of focusing errors. Also, its large enough that people pay special attention to it, which makes it harder to get natural portraits. There’s no getting around it: the Noctilux is a tricky lens to use well.
Leica 50mm Summicron (collapsable hood: v3?) f2.0
The 50 ‘Cron is reasonably priced by Leica standards, optically excellent, and comfortable to use and carry. My only complaint is that the collapsible hood provides very limited protection against knocks, and so I wish that it was not telescoping. I sold this lens, favoring the Zeiss offering because of its much better hood and lesser market value.
Zeiss 50mm Biogon f2.0
I find this lens to be sufficiently optically similar to the Leica offering that I don’t care about the difference: they're both great. I strongly prefer the hood on the Zeiss than the one on the Summicron, however.
Leica 50mm Summilux f1.4
The image quality that this lens is capable of at f1.4 is amazing, but I do not find a significant advantage over other offerings by f2.0. It costs a lot of extra money and trouble for that extra stop.
Leica 75mm Summilux f1.4
I consider this to be a special lens. it is capable of making images which look quite unique to me, when used at f2.0 or larger. When correctly employed, I love the results that this lens gives! It is, however, prohibitively big and heavy, and provides an unforgivingly slim depth-of-field at maximum aperture.
Konica 90mm Hexanon f2.8
This is a very handy travel lens as its moderate price and compact size make it easy to carry around casually: given its focal length. I have used the Leica 90mm f2.8 version, and I suspect that it may be noticeably optically superior. The 90mm Hexanon remains, however, very good, and I do not anticipate upgrading this lens.
If I could only keep...
One lens: 35mm f1.4 (either a modern Leica or the Voigtlander)
Two lenses: 35mm f1.4 + Voigtlander 15mm f4.5
Three lenses: 15mm Voigtlander, + 24mm Summilux + Zeiss 50mm f2.0.
Ryan
Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 (plus screw-to-M adapter)
This is one of my favourite and most used lenses. I zone focus ahead of time, usually at f.4.5 or f5.6 which basically gets everything from a meter out to infinity, and I shoot it from the hip while still walking. Its small enough and forgiving enough that people seldom realize that I am photographing with it. While this lens looks better on the M8, it is also remarkably corrected on full frame.
Leica 16-18-21mm WATE f4.0
I find this lens so much less convenient than the Voightlander 15mm that it hardly gets used. I keep it because it produces better results on full frame than the Voigtlander. I suspect, though, that I would not replace this lens if I lost it. Its a phenomenal piece of engineering and I love the results, but its novelties seem narrowly applicable.
Leica 24mm Summilux ASPH. f1.4
I prefer this lens for indoor low light portraits because it is so forgiving. Its sharp right from f1.4. Its wide enough that I can often capture an indoor scene without having to back up against walls or lean back over furniture. It gives enough depth of field at f1.4 that I have some margin for error in focusing when I have to make the most of the available light. Its wide enough to allow these things, but not so wide that the perspective draws attention to itself. I love to photograph a cross a kitchen or cafe table, and I am aware of no better lens for this task. Even at the obscene price, I’d replace this lens if I lost it.
Zeiss 25mm Biogon f2.8
I like how this lens handles and it gives great results (I loved this lens with Provia 100F), but It doesn’t do what the 24mm Summilux does (I usually use conventional wides indoors and in low light). My copy also broke after taking a hard knock in the Hong Kong International Airport: the barrel separated. Despite that, it seemed very well constructed and I loved the metal hood (I had the round one).
Voigtlander Nokton 35mm f.1.4
I bought this lens for traveling: intending to sell it once I returned from 18 months abroad. Now that I’ve used it extensively, I don’t feel under-equipped at all when I mount this lens rather than the Summilux ASPH. Its reasonably priced, compact, and it uses an excellent metal hood. The focus ring is a little stiffer than I’d like and it uses 43mm rather than 46mm filters, but other than that I have no complaints. I stay conscious of the particulars of many of my lenses when I have them mounted: either of how I need to use the lens to get the best results from it, or of the tremendous amount that the lens may cost me and that I want to make sure I protect it. With this lens mounted, I’m not conscientious about it at all: and that’s about the highest praise I can give of a piece of photographic equipment.
Leica 35mm Summilux pre-ASPH. 35mm f1.4
I sold this lens quickly, and would not recommend it. Perhaps it exhibits some of that fabled Leica glow, but its also quite prone to flaring and I’ve lost several otherwise good images because of it. This lens is only to be used very selectively at maximum aperture.
Leica 35mm Summilux v.1 ASPH. f1.4
If money was no object and if I was only going to keep one lens, this would be it. There are very few circumstances where I can’t get the image I want with this lens. In fact, I have a feeling that I get a higher percentage of “keeper” images when I stick to using just this one lens than I do when I try to specialize my kit and I start thinking about which focal length might be ideal. While the lens can be pressed to flare, it is generally optically excellent. I wish the hood was metal rather than plastic as I’ve cracked two now, but this is really my only complaint about the lens. Please note that I have not tried the newest ASPH. model.
Voigtlander Nocton 40mm f1.4
I have a hard time making a case for this lens over the Voigtlander 35mm f.1.4. It’s cheaper than and optically as good as the 35mm , but for me the more classic focal length and the ability to frame more precisely on modern M’s makes the slightly wider lens worth the extra cost.
Leica 50mm E60 Noctilux f1.0
The best photograph I’ve taken so far was made with this lens, and the image could not have been made with a lens of lessor aperture, but I sold it because I find it to very narrowly ideally suited. It is very difficult to take upstaged portraits with this lens at maximum aperture because of the extremely limited depth of field, and so I’ve lost several would-be good photographs because of focusing errors. Also, its large enough that people pay special attention to it, which makes it harder to get natural portraits. There’s no getting around it: the Noctilux is a tricky lens to use well.
Leica 50mm Summicron (collapsable hood: v3?) f2.0
The 50 ‘Cron is reasonably priced by Leica standards, optically excellent, and comfortable to use and carry. My only complaint is that the collapsible hood provides very limited protection against knocks, and so I wish that it was not telescoping. I sold this lens, favoring the Zeiss offering because of its much better hood and lesser market value.
Zeiss 50mm Biogon f2.0
I find this lens to be sufficiently optically similar to the Leica offering that I don’t care about the difference: they're both great. I strongly prefer the hood on the Zeiss than the one on the Summicron, however.
Leica 50mm Summilux f1.4
The image quality that this lens is capable of at f1.4 is amazing, but I do not find a significant advantage over other offerings by f2.0. It costs a lot of extra money and trouble for that extra stop.
Leica 75mm Summilux f1.4
I consider this to be a special lens. it is capable of making images which look quite unique to me, when used at f2.0 or larger. When correctly employed, I love the results that this lens gives! It is, however, prohibitively big and heavy, and provides an unforgivingly slim depth-of-field at maximum aperture.
Konica 90mm Hexanon f2.8
This is a very handy travel lens as its moderate price and compact size make it easy to carry around casually: given its focal length. I have used the Leica 90mm f2.8 version, and I suspect that it may be noticeably optically superior. The 90mm Hexanon remains, however, very good, and I do not anticipate upgrading this lens.
If I could only keep...
One lens: 35mm f1.4 (either a modern Leica or the Voigtlander)
Two lenses: 35mm f1.4 + Voigtlander 15mm f4.5
Three lenses: 15mm Voigtlander, + 24mm Summilux + Zeiss 50mm f2.0.
Ryan
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Ryan,
Well, I've been using 'em rather longer, and here's my take on your headings. The fact that I disagree flatly with almost everything you say doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong -- just that two photographers, each with a lot of experience, can find each others' views all but incomprehesible.
On selecting a lens for softness or glow: In the digital age, I don’t understand preferring a lens because of its softness, vignetting, lower contrast, or glow. And I don't understand piddling around with software in order to 'fake' a look. Among my favourite lenses are a pre-aspheric 35mm Summilux, a current 50 C-Sonnar, and a Thambar.
On Leica lenses vs. Zeiss or Voigtlander:Some Leica lenses are special So are some Voigtländer and Zeiss lenses. Use the ones you like best. If you're constantly worried about replacement cost, you've got the wrong lens. If you've got the rght lens, you just use it, 'casually' or otherwise, regardless of cost.
On large apertures:Normal and telephoto lenses are tedious to use at large apertures Not for me.
On adding light: I almost never use on-camera flash -- I'd rather miss the picture -- but I'd rather use flash than wander about with a huge, glowing white flag on top of my camera.
The Softrelease: I loathe them, and (having tried quite a few, on a good range of cameras) I find that if anything, they give me slightly less sharpness. As for resale value, I buy my cameras to use, not to resell.
The leather half case: Another thing I hate. Why slow down reloading your camera and make it bulkier? And do you really think anyone notices if your camera looks 'older and more amateur'? Either you trust people or you don't, and just because someone is poor, it doesn't mean they're dishonest. And yes, I have travelled a lot.
On equipment size:My experience is that the quality of the moment captured in a portrait is often inversely proportional to the size of the camera that I use. And mine is that some of my best portraits have been on 8x10.
The only lenses I've not used out of your list are the two f/1.4 Voigtländers and the 90 Hexanon, though I have used quite a few more that aren't on your list. Perhaps needless to say, I disagree with an awful lot of your conclusions there, too. For example, much as I love the 24 Summilux, it's a bloody useless lens for the kind of portraits I take. And at least 50% of my film shots over the last 30 years have been taken with a pre-aspheric 35 Summilux. When my first one was stolen, many years ago, I bought another one, new, immediately.
Again, this doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong, but I suspect it does mean that one can get overly precious about which lenses one buys, sells and uses. One of my favourite pictures, ever, was taken with a 50/3,5 uncoated Elmar on a Leica IIIa. It's more important to be in the right place, at the right time, with any half-decent camera and lens, than to obsess about choosing precisely the right lens, on theoretical grounds, for every shot.
This is still more true if you're trying to base your choices on someone else's written opinions, rather than personal experience or on looking at their pictures. For the latter, it doesn't matter if they're a good or bad photographer: in many cases you can still judge technical quality, and what appears to be important to them, even if you find their pictures tedious and ill-composed. The majority of the pics on my website were taken with Leicas, but here's a bit specifically about why I've used 'em for 40 years: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/leicaphilia.html
Cheers,
R.
Well, I've been using 'em rather longer, and here's my take on your headings. The fact that I disagree flatly with almost everything you say doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong -- just that two photographers, each with a lot of experience, can find each others' views all but incomprehesible.
On selecting a lens for softness or glow: In the digital age, I don’t understand preferring a lens because of its softness, vignetting, lower contrast, or glow. And I don't understand piddling around with software in order to 'fake' a look. Among my favourite lenses are a pre-aspheric 35mm Summilux, a current 50 C-Sonnar, and a Thambar.
On Leica lenses vs. Zeiss or Voigtlander:Some Leica lenses are special So are some Voigtländer and Zeiss lenses. Use the ones you like best. If you're constantly worried about replacement cost, you've got the wrong lens. If you've got the rght lens, you just use it, 'casually' or otherwise, regardless of cost.
On large apertures:Normal and telephoto lenses are tedious to use at large apertures Not for me.
On adding light: I almost never use on-camera flash -- I'd rather miss the picture -- but I'd rather use flash than wander about with a huge, glowing white flag on top of my camera.
The Softrelease: I loathe them, and (having tried quite a few, on a good range of cameras) I find that if anything, they give me slightly less sharpness. As for resale value, I buy my cameras to use, not to resell.
The leather half case: Another thing I hate. Why slow down reloading your camera and make it bulkier? And do you really think anyone notices if your camera looks 'older and more amateur'? Either you trust people or you don't, and just because someone is poor, it doesn't mean they're dishonest. And yes, I have travelled a lot.
On equipment size:My experience is that the quality of the moment captured in a portrait is often inversely proportional to the size of the camera that I use. And mine is that some of my best portraits have been on 8x10.
The only lenses I've not used out of your list are the two f/1.4 Voigtländers and the 90 Hexanon, though I have used quite a few more that aren't on your list. Perhaps needless to say, I disagree with an awful lot of your conclusions there, too. For example, much as I love the 24 Summilux, it's a bloody useless lens for the kind of portraits I take. And at least 50% of my film shots over the last 30 years have been taken with a pre-aspheric 35 Summilux. When my first one was stolen, many years ago, I bought another one, new, immediately.
Again, this doesn't mean that I'm right and you're wrong, but I suspect it does mean that one can get overly precious about which lenses one buys, sells and uses. One of my favourite pictures, ever, was taken with a 50/3,5 uncoated Elmar on a Leica IIIa. It's more important to be in the right place, at the right time, with any half-decent camera and lens, than to obsess about choosing precisely the right lens, on theoretical grounds, for every shot.
This is still more true if you're trying to base your choices on someone else's written opinions, rather than personal experience or on looking at their pictures. For the latter, it doesn't matter if they're a good or bad photographer: in many cases you can still judge technical quality, and what appears to be important to them, even if you find their pictures tedious and ill-composed. The majority of the pics on my website were taken with Leicas, but here's a bit specifically about why I've used 'em for 40 years: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/leicaphilia.html
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
damien.murphy
Damien
Hi Ryan,
An interesting and well thought out summation of your experiences.
I always find other peoples experiences and ways of working photographically interesting, and appreciate the time you've taken to write up such a comprehensive pair of posts.
For my own two cents, I agree with you re: equipment value, where the lower the replacement value the more likely I am to be more gung-ho and adventurous with it, pushing it towards the limit a little more.
Re: fast lenses, I found your experiences and preferences for wider fast lenses mirrored my own experience with slr's where a drop down in focal length could often be worth a stop of hand-holdabilty. With rangefinders though, I find I can handhold reliably down to 1/15th of a second for lenses up to 50mm in focal length, and regardless of the focal length, 1/8th of a second is where things get iffy for me when handholding.
Hadn't come across the light panels before, and while hotshoe mounted LED panels are not my cup of tea, I find the photographic possibilities of LED lighting interesting, particularly in place of continuous studio-type lighting which have run hot in the past.
An interesting and well thought out summation of your experiences.
I always find other peoples experiences and ways of working photographically interesting, and appreciate the time you've taken to write up such a comprehensive pair of posts.
For my own two cents, I agree with you re: equipment value, where the lower the replacement value the more likely I am to be more gung-ho and adventurous with it, pushing it towards the limit a little more.
Re: fast lenses, I found your experiences and preferences for wider fast lenses mirrored my own experience with slr's where a drop down in focal length could often be worth a stop of hand-holdabilty. With rangefinders though, I find I can handhold reliably down to 1/15th of a second for lenses up to 50mm in focal length, and regardless of the focal length, 1/8th of a second is where things get iffy for me when handholding.
Hadn't come across the light panels before, and while hotshoe mounted LED panels are not my cup of tea, I find the photographic possibilities of LED lighting interesting, particularly in place of continuous studio-type lighting which have run hot in the past.
Last edited:
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Well, there is no doubt about the latter, since it is much less bright than even the internal flashes on compacts. There aren't yet any LED lights that can fill a bigger role than that of a plain close distance eyelight (which is not there to light the scene, but to reflect in the eye) - there is no lack of sheer power, as LED torches demonstrate, but nobody has so far tamed high power LEDs so that their light distribution is even enough to photograph with.
I have my doubts whether a effective on-camera torch is more discrete than a flash - at levels good for photography it might be even more unpleasant for the subject.
In any case, flash has an esthetic of its own dating back to Weegee and beyond - low power eyelights are at the very best associated with family videos and local TV.
On a global scale there are not that many people who resent having their picture taken by a journalist, but don't mind the same by hobbyists - this seems to be a suburbia only state of mind in the US and UK. Pretty much everywhere else, posing as a "tourist" is useless or sometimes even to your disadvantage. And the memes of the past are fading rapidly - if you really want to do the tourist, half-cases are about as appropriate as wearing a leather cap and goggles to impersonate a car driver. If you are really serious about the disguise aspect, get a digital compact.
Richard G
Veteran
Great and coherent post. Lots to think about. I like your reasons for favouring the 24mm Summilux. Similarly, size, handling and the available hood are important determinants of lens choice, and a readiness to leave the Leica stable when appropriate is one of the most important things I've learnt on photographic forums. The business of missed shots and why is seldom spoken about. My ZM Sonnar, for instance, great lens, but for some jobs the greater certainty of getting the shot in focus means taking the Summicron (mine is older with the removable plastic hood.) As for the preciousness of a lens, for a non-pro it is a factor. I currently am using mostly my M5 with a Zeiss 50 or Voigtlander 25 and I just don't think about the care of the camera nearly so much. Post some more thoughts from the Cauldron.
PS no conflict of interest to declare
PS no conflict of interest to declare
Last edited:
Hephaestus
Established
Roger,
We certainly do disagree a great deal. I am comfortable with that and I respect your opinion. However, you have raised a few points on which I think that I have failed to communicate clearly.
Firstly, I do not mean to present myself as an expert. Nor do I think that others should follow me in my approach to photography. I understand that my approach to photography differs significantly from what might be called conventional, and I simply wish to present my opinions to in order to provide some alternative perspectives to the discussion. I see now that I had not made this clear, and for that I am embarrassed.
My comments regarding the selection of a lens for qualities such a softness were intended only to relate to digital photography. Nonetheless, I suspect that you will not accept the distinction. Meanwhile, I do not accept that there is a meaningful distinction in kind between modifying the appearance of an image by using software versus modifying that image by selecting glass or film for its particular imaging characteristics. Its analog versus digital, but neither can claim true fidelity to the thing represented in the image. However, I digress...
What I was trying to suggest is that while it may have been difficult to replicate some of the image characteristics produced by a Thambar when shooting with film, it is less difficult in modern digital photography. Given this premise, it is much easier by using software to make an image taken with a modern high resolution and contrasty lens (like the 90mm Elmarit) resemble some of the characteristics of an image taken with a Thambar than it is to take an image taken Thambar with the filter installed and to make it resemble the sort of image that the 90mm Elmarit might produce.
Similarly, My comments regarding the use of a leather half-case were intended to relate mainly to digital cameras. I take your point about film loading.
I also did not mean to suggest, nor do I think, that there is a correlation between poverty and dishonesty. However, there is a strong correlation between desperate circumstances and one's willingness to take desperate measures. I would be prepared to do some unpleasant things myself if it was the only way I could feed or protect my self and my family. Therein lies the correlation with less developed countries: there is less or no social safety net and a large number of people may be literally starving to death.
I've had enough cameras stolen from close around me that it suggests there is a some reason why my M8 isn't getting targeted while the guy next to me has his CoolPix slashed off of his neck. The only thing that I can consistently point to is that my camera looks old and rough. But if a person chooses to carry a more valuable looking camera around a bus depot in Dar es Salaam, I'm not going to try and stop them.
Roger, you wrote:
"It's more important to be in the right place, at the right time, with any half-decent camera and lens, than to obsess about choosing precisely the right lens, on theoretical grounds, for every shot."
It is on this fundamental point, which you have eloquently put, that we find complete agreement. I appreciate the discussion. Thank you for adding your thoughts.
Best regards,
Ryan
We certainly do disagree a great deal. I am comfortable with that and I respect your opinion. However, you have raised a few points on which I think that I have failed to communicate clearly.
Firstly, I do not mean to present myself as an expert. Nor do I think that others should follow me in my approach to photography. I understand that my approach to photography differs significantly from what might be called conventional, and I simply wish to present my opinions to in order to provide some alternative perspectives to the discussion. I see now that I had not made this clear, and for that I am embarrassed.
My comments regarding the selection of a lens for qualities such a softness were intended only to relate to digital photography. Nonetheless, I suspect that you will not accept the distinction. Meanwhile, I do not accept that there is a meaningful distinction in kind between modifying the appearance of an image by using software versus modifying that image by selecting glass or film for its particular imaging characteristics. Its analog versus digital, but neither can claim true fidelity to the thing represented in the image. However, I digress...
What I was trying to suggest is that while it may have been difficult to replicate some of the image characteristics produced by a Thambar when shooting with film, it is less difficult in modern digital photography. Given this premise, it is much easier by using software to make an image taken with a modern high resolution and contrasty lens (like the 90mm Elmarit) resemble some of the characteristics of an image taken with a Thambar than it is to take an image taken Thambar with the filter installed and to make it resemble the sort of image that the 90mm Elmarit might produce.
Similarly, My comments regarding the use of a leather half-case were intended to relate mainly to digital cameras. I take your point about film loading.
I also did not mean to suggest, nor do I think, that there is a correlation between poverty and dishonesty. However, there is a strong correlation between desperate circumstances and one's willingness to take desperate measures. I would be prepared to do some unpleasant things myself if it was the only way I could feed or protect my self and my family. Therein lies the correlation with less developed countries: there is less or no social safety net and a large number of people may be literally starving to death.
I've had enough cameras stolen from close around me that it suggests there is a some reason why my M8 isn't getting targeted while the guy next to me has his CoolPix slashed off of his neck. The only thing that I can consistently point to is that my camera looks old and rough. But if a person chooses to carry a more valuable looking camera around a bus depot in Dar es Salaam, I'm not going to try and stop them.
Roger, you wrote:
"It's more important to be in the right place, at the right time, with any half-decent camera and lens, than to obsess about choosing precisely the right lens, on theoretical grounds, for every shot."
It is on this fundamental point, which you have eloquently put, that we find complete agreement. I appreciate the discussion. Thank you for adding your thoughts.
Best regards,
Ryan
Colin Corneau
Colin Corneau
Never thought about doing street photography with an LED light panel...seems a tad trickier than figuring out the focusing on a 'lux or 1.0 50 mil, no?
ederek
Well-known
Ryan - Thanks for putting together a summary of your experiences. I found the 24 lux perspective interesting, and often pine for a faster 35 than the 2.0 offered by the Zeiss Biogon (a fantastic lens).
yanidel
Well-known
Time to start selling your kit then.
This lens + 60mm Hex is basically all I need.
The Nokton is nowhere near the Lux Asph wide open. You can obviously get the same shot but the look will differ a lot. The Nokton might be a complement for a more classic look but not a substitution for the Lux Asph. I am also planning a 18 months trip and have used the Nokton a bit but this is a dead end, I'll take the Lux.
John Elder
Well-known
Roger Hicks: The only thing that suprises me about your post is your not liking soft releases. I don't understand how they create less sharpness. Could you explain? Thanks
Hephaestus
Established
Damien,
You've got a steadier hand than I! Back (not so very long ago!) when I was primarily shooting film and printing moderate sizes, I thought that I was about 75% with a 35mm lens exposing for 1/15th and maybe 35% at 1/8th. Unfortunately, since switching over to an M8, I've discovered that I'm really no damn good at all at 1/8th and only have significant confidence at 1/20th or better. Maybe less caffeine is in order? Mind you, if I'm shooting a 50mm at five feet and low light, then I'm more inclined to trust my nerves than my focusing; I'd generally prefer a 1/15th at 2.0 than 1/30th at f1.4. Obviously, your mileage will vary.
Sevo,
On LED panels
You're absolutely correct that current LED panels are no practical match in output to a flash. LitePanels claims two stops at six feet with my MicroPro, though. While I find that to be about a half stop optimistic, even a single stop can be a big difference on the ragged edge.
The pannel also scatters light quite broadly, and I find that its often possible to add enough light by removing the panel from the hot shoe and placing it elsewhere on a GorillaPod. Obviously, this whole approach is contingent on planning, and it is hardly discreet, but I personally never bother trying to add light casually. For me, the LitePanel has proven compact enough and handy enough that I often take it with me if I am uncertain where I will end up shooting.
I just noticed that there is a new LitePanel model, called the Hybrid, which functions both as a burst flash and a continuous-on pannel. I have no experience with it at all, but the concept may make a kit more flexible still! I look forward to reading about it...
On appearances
Your comments regarding the relative advantages of looking professional versus looking amateur are well taken. In Vancouver and Paris I have been much better received when taking to the streets with my 5D MkII and 24-70 2.8L than with my rough looking Leica.
My experience in developing countries, however, has been the opposite to yours. I have three reasons for preferring to look amateur in such circumstances.
1. While people have indeed often been more open to having their pictures taken by me when I carry by big SLR kit, even openly insisting that I do so, these are not the kind of natural street pictures that I'm after. In contrast, if I just look like another foreigner with a camera then people often pay no attention.
2. If I look like a pro photographer, then people in developing countries will, in my experience, be much more likely to demand money from me for having taking their picture.
3. If my camera looks digital, then people (especially children!) will often ask to see the picture I've just taken. While this can be fun (I usually keep an Olympus digital point and shoot in my pocket for just this purpose), it also leads to people trying to grab and pass around the camera. Its a tricky situation when someone, seeing the picture displayed which you've just taken, asks you to pay them for it and then, when you refuse, grabs the camera from your hands and tries to ransom it back to you. I've seen this happen several times.
Richard G:
On extra variables:
I exposed two rolls of Acros 100 a few years back with a 50mm Sonar, and I really enjoyed the lens! However, while I didn't observe any problems due to focus shift in the shots I took, and while I may have become totally confident using the lens, that sort of concern is exactly the sort of thing that I try to avoid now. While I have several images taken wide open and up close with a Noct that are really dear to me, I'd hate like hell to miss a decisive moment with a beloved family member, or even an interesting stranger, because I tried to get too fancy with equipment. For me, I'd rather know that I got the shot and have it turn out well than risk the capture in hopes that it would turn out great. I haven't always been that way, mind you; I bought my Noct, hoping I could learn to make it sing the way Nenad does. But as it turns out, I'm just not that kind of photographer.
Best regards,
Ryan
You've got a steadier hand than I! Back (not so very long ago!) when I was primarily shooting film and printing moderate sizes, I thought that I was about 75% with a 35mm lens exposing for 1/15th and maybe 35% at 1/8th. Unfortunately, since switching over to an M8, I've discovered that I'm really no damn good at all at 1/8th and only have significant confidence at 1/20th or better. Maybe less caffeine is in order? Mind you, if I'm shooting a 50mm at five feet and low light, then I'm more inclined to trust my nerves than my focusing; I'd generally prefer a 1/15th at 2.0 than 1/30th at f1.4. Obviously, your mileage will vary.
Sevo,
On LED panels
You're absolutely correct that current LED panels are no practical match in output to a flash. LitePanels claims two stops at six feet with my MicroPro, though. While I find that to be about a half stop optimistic, even a single stop can be a big difference on the ragged edge.
The pannel also scatters light quite broadly, and I find that its often possible to add enough light by removing the panel from the hot shoe and placing it elsewhere on a GorillaPod. Obviously, this whole approach is contingent on planning, and it is hardly discreet, but I personally never bother trying to add light casually. For me, the LitePanel has proven compact enough and handy enough that I often take it with me if I am uncertain where I will end up shooting.
I just noticed that there is a new LitePanel model, called the Hybrid, which functions both as a burst flash and a continuous-on pannel. I have no experience with it at all, but the concept may make a kit more flexible still! I look forward to reading about it...
On appearances
Your comments regarding the relative advantages of looking professional versus looking amateur are well taken. In Vancouver and Paris I have been much better received when taking to the streets with my 5D MkII and 24-70 2.8L than with my rough looking Leica.
My experience in developing countries, however, has been the opposite to yours. I have three reasons for preferring to look amateur in such circumstances.
1. While people have indeed often been more open to having their pictures taken by me when I carry by big SLR kit, even openly insisting that I do so, these are not the kind of natural street pictures that I'm after. In contrast, if I just look like another foreigner with a camera then people often pay no attention.
2. If I look like a pro photographer, then people in developing countries will, in my experience, be much more likely to demand money from me for having taking their picture.
3. If my camera looks digital, then people (especially children!) will often ask to see the picture I've just taken. While this can be fun (I usually keep an Olympus digital point and shoot in my pocket for just this purpose), it also leads to people trying to grab and pass around the camera. Its a tricky situation when someone, seeing the picture displayed which you've just taken, asks you to pay them for it and then, when you refuse, grabs the camera from your hands and tries to ransom it back to you. I've seen this happen several times.
Richard G:
On extra variables:
I exposed two rolls of Acros 100 a few years back with a 50mm Sonar, and I really enjoyed the lens! However, while I didn't observe any problems due to focus shift in the shots I took, and while I may have become totally confident using the lens, that sort of concern is exactly the sort of thing that I try to avoid now. While I have several images taken wide open and up close with a Noct that are really dear to me, I'd hate like hell to miss a decisive moment with a beloved family member, or even an interesting stranger, because I tried to get too fancy with equipment. For me, I'd rather know that I got the shot and have it turn out well than risk the capture in hopes that it would turn out great. I haven't always been that way, mind you; I bought my Noct, hoping I could learn to make it sing the way Nenad does. But as it turns out, I'm just not that kind of photographer.
Best regards,
Ryan
Last edited:
Hephaestus
Established
Colin:
"Never thought about doing street photography with an LED light panel...seems a tad trickier than figuring out the focusing on a 'lux or 1.0 50 mil, no?"
I'm not sure if you're making fun or not... If not, I've misled you: I don't use a panel or a flash on the street. I think I mentioned that I also consider myself a domsetic photographer (I often take unplanned photographs in people's homes), and in this context I have found the LED panel to be useful.
yanidel:
I agree that the 35mm ASPH. Summilux is better than the Voigtlander Nokton, but I don't see the difference as so pronounced that I regret using the Nokton. Then again: I don't use my 35mm's wide open nearly so much anymore, since getting the 24mm Summilux. Maybe that explains my softening on the Nokton? Safe travels on your trip! Where are you heading to?
JSU:
Fair enough: both in general and on the 15mm. I haven't used the new version of the Voigtlander 15 so I can't say for sure, but I suspect that I will still prefer the screw-mount version. I've never felt compelled to use a filter on mine so far, and the screw mount version is so phenomenally compact!
Best regards,
Ryan
"Never thought about doing street photography with an LED light panel...seems a tad trickier than figuring out the focusing on a 'lux or 1.0 50 mil, no?"
I'm not sure if you're making fun or not... If not, I've misled you: I don't use a panel or a flash on the street. I think I mentioned that I also consider myself a domsetic photographer (I often take unplanned photographs in people's homes), and in this context I have found the LED panel to be useful.
yanidel:
I agree that the 35mm ASPH. Summilux is better than the Voigtlander Nokton, but I don't see the difference as so pronounced that I regret using the Nokton. Then again: I don't use my 35mm's wide open nearly so much anymore, since getting the 24mm Summilux. Maybe that explains my softening on the Nokton? Safe travels on your trip! Where are you heading to?
JSU:
Fair enough: both in general and on the 15mm. I haven't used the new version of the Voigtlander 15 so I can't say for sure, but I suspect that I will still prefer the screw-mount version. I've never felt compelled to use a filter on mine so far, and the screw mount version is so phenomenally compact!
Best regards,
Ryan
yanidel
Well-known
I shoot 90% wide open. The Nokton is very soft in the corner and much lower contrast which I don't like much. Indeed by F8 the differences are much less.
I am heading to the world, 15-20 countries, will see
thanks.ckuang
Established
Have been on assignment in the slums of many many developing countries and have to strongly disagree. First, just because you're ready to resort to crime because you're starving doesn't mean others will.
second, if a person is starving or desperate, what good is a camera to them? you think they're going to run off with your camera post images shot with their digital cameras from their PC and receive money on their paypal account? Nope they want cash or gold. I've offered to give my camera, a contax g2, to some subjects in the slums of cambodia, and they refused because it did them no good and trying to flog off something like that would raise more questions and get them into more trouble from the police or local mafia than it was worth. This whole, my camera is beat up and saves me from crime is waayyy over rated.
Hephaestus
Established
yanidel,
You've got me digging through my archives for images taken with the Nokton while wide open. You are certainly making good use of maximum aperture, and so I can understand the importance of the upgrade to you.
I'm envious of your upcoming adventure! Should you choose to share them: I look forward to seeing some of your pictures, upon your safe return!
Regards,
Ryan
You've got me digging through my archives for images taken with the Nokton while wide open. You are certainly making good use of maximum aperture, and so I can understand the importance of the upgrade to you.
I'm envious of your upcoming adventure! Should you choose to share them: I look forward to seeing some of your pictures, upon your safe return!
Regards,
Ryan
Last edited:
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
Hephaestus
Established
Hello ckuang,
All that I can do is strongly disagree with your disagreement!
Perhaps we've been to different places?
I should begin by clarifying: my argument for using a half case is two-fold.
1. Firstly, it may conceal the fact that your digital camera is in fact digital and also make you appear more casual. I have tried to explain why I think this is advantageous in my reply to Sevo entitled "On appearances".
2. A distant second consideration that I make in advocating the use of a leather half case is that this may allow you to better rough up the appearance of your camera. This is in hopes of diminishing its apparent value and likelihood of theft, while still preserving the appearance and resale value of the actual camera body itself.
To this second point that I have made, it seems to me that you have responded two ways.
1. Firstly you do not think that I am reasonable in presume that a camera will be targeted for theft. This is because I am unreasonable in presuming that others would consider taking my camera, and even if a such consideration exists then my camera is still not at significant risk because it is not useful to desperate people.
2) Secondly, that roughing up the appearance of a camera will do nothing to influence the likelihood that the camera will be taken.
Response:
I agree that camera itself is certainly useless to a starving person, but so is paper money or gold might I add. So long as a thing has value in the greater world then it can be pawned or traded for something else of value. There are certainly places and circumstances where taking your item will be seen as not worth the effort or the potential consequences, but other people in other places will see things differently. I am concerned about these other places.
It is unfortunately a basic fact that things are stolen in the world. I have been in several circumstances, while carrying a camera, where cameras were being stolen from other people around me.
Furthermore, I hope that we can agree and those things are not selected strictly at random. So this raises the question: why wasn't my camera stolen instead of another camera? Please note that I am not presuming here that the amount of crime is potentially infinite: a certain number of cameras are stolen, and mine was not one of those number, but it could have been.
There are a number of possibile factors which help explain why my camera wasn't taken, and the best answer will almost certainly a combination of these factors. However, it may still be useful to still break down some of these considerations individually.
I'm the difference:
It could be that my camera wasn't stolen because of some fact about me. Maybe I'm bigger and more troublesome looking than those other camera-carriers around me? But I don't think I was always the most intimidating looking. This factor is difficult to change and of little use to many others.
Pure luck:
Maybe I just got lucky? Well, that could be. I am reluctant to accept this, though, because I've been around a lot of camera thefts (I suspect more than 20). I'd have to be very lucky.
Desirability of the thing itself:
Maybe a factor in why my camera didn't get stolen, when many others did, has to do with the perception of my item. Maybe my item seemed less desirable to the thieves. I am strongly inclined to think that the relative value of my camera in the eyes of a would be thief is one of the reasons that my camera wasn't stolen.
It's a small leap from this point to suggest that I can reduce the perceived value of my item, and accordingly its desirability to a thief, by making my item appear both technologically obsolete and heavily worn. I am simply suggesting that it may be advantageous to make your valuables appear less valuable.
Perhaps you think that its only chance or personal consderations which will influence whether or not your items are taken from you, and that perceived value of your item is irrelevant? I disagree. Perhaps you think that trying to reduce the perceived value of your item is not worth the effort? Again, I disagree.
If you wish to disagree my reasoning then you certainly may. I hope that your possessions will always remain safe, but I also fear that they might not.
Best regards,
Ryan
Last edited:
hamustar
Member
Ryan,
Thanks for writing these frank thoughts of yours.
I tend to concur with you on the point of Leica vs Zeiss vs CV vs whatever. I'm now at an early stage of my rangefinder journey and GAS is building up at a slippery rate.
At the back of my mind however, the wise side of me tells me that all modern lenses are superior for what I shoot.....but this doesn't stop me from lusting over the leica/zeiss offerings just to see what the hype is about.
After a few years, yes i'd come to a point where all lenses of similar specs behave the same way 80% of the time.
Thanks for writing these frank thoughts of yours.
I tend to concur with you on the point of Leica vs Zeiss vs CV vs whatever. I'm now at an early stage of my rangefinder journey and GAS is building up at a slippery rate.
At the back of my mind however, the wise side of me tells me that all modern lenses are superior for what I shoot.....but this doesn't stop me from lusting over the leica/zeiss offerings just to see what the hype is about.
After a few years, yes i'd come to a point where all lenses of similar specs behave the same way 80% of the time.
Hephaestus
Established
Semilog,
I actually thought about Dorfman when making making my statement. I deeply admire her work! Unfortunately, I do not have Dorfman's skill or personability. Also, I do not take my subjects into a studio. For me, this often seems to entail that I capture better portraits when I keep my kit small.
Great point, though! It certainly can be done!
Best regards,
Ryan