jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
I was in Vietnam twice. I never took the images I should have. I would never want to relive it but if you are there in the mess. Document, please document.
The $7000 question, a different pov.
- Thread starter hitx1
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 36
- Views 4K
250swb
Well-known
You keep on asking 'what is the difference', and then keep on stopping anybody talking about the difference is by a qualifying "aside from physical size etc?
That is the difference. If the camera allows the photographer to make the type of photographs he or she wants, by being discreet like an M9, or being in your face like a Canon 5d Mkwhatever, then the difference is worth the price of the either camera. But if the lighter weight of an M8 or M9 setup means you pick the camera up and go out with it instead of thinking 'I can't be bothered because of the weight of my Canon 5dMkwhatever and lenses', then the price of the M8 or M9 is worth it. If the size of the M8 or M9 gets you into situations where otherwise people may be wary of a great big DSLR, then the price of the camera is worth it. Do you get the picture that is developing?
I just don't understand why you need to keep asking if you are so experienced a photographer that you have shot celebs and had magazine front covers. Surely you sense the interaction between yourself, the pictures you make, and the people you photograph to decide for yourself if you are influenced favourably by using a rangefinder or DSLR?
So instead of pixel peeping and saying to youself 'these Leica pixels look a lot like those from my Canon', try standing back and looking at the damned qualities of the photographs and see if they are the same. You could do worse than look at the work of celebrated rangefinder users to get a feel for the type of work they use it for.
Steve
jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
Ok, yesterday I shot the Leica in the post office and no one noticed. I spoke with a woman from Kenya and asked her if she minded if I photographed her. The camera is so much less intrusive when compared to an SLR and people did not notice the sound of the camera firing. The person I was photographing didn't even notice when I had shot the image.
And to me, the output, digital, from the Leica is much different when compared to my FF 5DII and 5D and I love the 5D. I have shot maybe 100,000 shots with the 5D so I know the look. The Leica digital does not look like my Canon stuff. IMO
And to me, the output, digital, from the Leica is much different when compared to my FF 5DII and 5D and I love the 5D. I have shot maybe 100,000 shots with the 5D so I know the look. The Leica digital does not look like my Canon stuff. IMO
Roger Hicks
Veteran
JPSuisse
Well-known
Tightsqueez,
I think you've got it right about 90% of the time with this statement:
Of course, the same holds true for a Bessa or RD-1, etc... Right?
And, hitx1, I think you've got it wrong about 90% of the time with this statement:
I just have over and over the same experience as tightsqueez has with any of my Mx cameras. This is a nice ADVANTAGE in a street environment, but 3 weeks ago shooting "against" other photographers for the attention of models, it is a DISADVANTAGE. The public will have its ideas about photography, and we have little ability to influence this while shooting.
Pick your tool appropriately.
Cheers, JP
@ Tightsqueez: FANTASTIC FLICKER SITE!
I think you've got it right about 90% of the time with this statement:
Of course, the same holds true for a Bessa or RD-1, etc... Right?
And, hitx1, I think you've got it wrong about 90% of the time with this statement:
I just have over and over the same experience as tightsqueez has with any of my Mx cameras. This is a nice ADVANTAGE in a street environment, but 3 weeks ago shooting "against" other photographers for the attention of models, it is a DISADVANTAGE. The public will have its ideas about photography, and we have little ability to influence this while shooting.
Pick your tool appropriately.
Cheers, JP
@ Tightsqueez: FANTASTIC FLICKER SITE!
The first lens I put on an M9 was a 21/3.4 Super Angulon, the red edge colors were quite obvious on the LCD. This is fixed with Cornerfix. Hopefully Leica will add this in firmware.
Sonnar Brian
Established
Okay, too much dead space at the top- because I was shooting at F1.5 and my Daughter was wearing Heelies. I wanted her eyes to be in focus and did not have time to recompose.
1935 Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5, wide-open.
You cannot put a 75 year old lens on a Canon DSLR. You can use it with the M8 and M9.
It's the lenses. I like the choice.
And my daughter loves those heelies. Give the RF a workout.
1935 Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm F1.5, wide-open.
You cannot put a 75 year old lens on a Canon DSLR. You can use it with the M8 and M9.
It's the lenses. I like the choice.
And my daughter loves those heelies. Give the RF a workout.
Last edited by a moderator:
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Sonnar Brian
Established
It's the damned mirror. CANNOT clear the mirror with the older lenses. Maybe when DSLR's go to electronic viewfinders and no mirror...
hitx1
Member
I concur...though I think the flavor of the comments were a bit harsh yet dully taken none the less.
jamato8
Corroding tank M9 35 ASPH
Out again today shooting the M9. I have to tell you, the digital files are what I wish my Canon FF had been. The 5DII has larger files but they aren't as smooth or detailed. Oh I don't need more detail than the 5DII but the M9 doesn't seem to break down digitally like other cameras can. I can go to 100 percent and it looks like film. I used to shoot 4X5 and larger and a lot of MF. This camera is solid and I am very glad I got it.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Maybe with the latest generation of DSLR's with live view, which obviously keeps the mirror up until the shot is taken, there is a possibilty to modify the software to convince the camera to keep the mirror up after the shot so it doesn't come down and destroy itself on the back of the lens!
250swb
Well-known
I'm sorry to have sounded harsh hitx1.
The progeny of camera and photographer are the photographs. Its entirely possible to make an almost identical photograph from both a Canon or Leica some of the time. But over a period of time the photographs speak for the style that develops with each camera.
So I would argue that because of the limited focal range available to somebody using a Leica M (no super zooms, no convenient macro, etc), combined with the type of view you get in the viewfinder (seeing outside the frame lines) the scale of the images changes. The photographer starts to feel himself in the scene, not isolated away from the scene by a zoom lens, nor isolated by the black border of the viewfinder in an SLR.
And this scale change, the distances from the subject and the various angles of views combined, averages out as being 'human scale'. Its a scale that plants the photographer near or amongst the subject matter of the photograph both physically and in the senses of the viewer. So the old adage for what makes a good photograph can take on another meaning if the stress on 'f8 and be there' is less on the 'f8' and more on the 'be there', or be amongst what you are photographing, be near your portrait sitter, make it feel you are on the verge of stepping into the scene yourself.
Two opposite examples of the human scale when using a Leica M are 'The Americans' by Robert Frank, and the New Topograhic (school of) work by Henry Wessel (there is a great book covering this and his other work simply called 'Henry Wessel', pub Steidl). Frank gets in close a lot of the time, he slices out chunks of a scene to portray life as a series of details that make a story. On the other hand Wessel more or less had a 28mm lens welded to his Leica, and his images are ones of isolation, both of the content and/or the photographer. Where Frank appears bullish and angry, Wessel is contemplative and sparing in direct involvement (prefering the viewer to make the next step as to what the images are 'about'). The key about both is that the images from both exist in that range of 'human scale' forced on a photographer by a Leica and its lenses.
Going back a bit, this is not to say their work couldn't have been done with a Nikon F and a 35mm lens, it could, but it is atypical, and becomes even more atypical the more zoom lenses got better and more people started to use them for the sake of convenience and efficiency. The ever changing extreme focal lengths seen in many photographers portfolios are a testament to the disconnection between human scale and the image. The photographer is not grounded by a zoom lens, they are free to interpret from a distance, and this freedom is easily won, but often abused. The Leica M keeps the photographer within the bounds of human scale, like it or lump it.
Steve
ashrafazlan
Established
What about those who choose to use primes instead of zooms on their dslrs? Are they any less "grounded" than M shooters?
Last edited:
bene
Established
@steve Brilliant exposition.
250swb
Well-known
Sigh, I did qualify the position as it being less likely to use a DSLR exclusively with primes nowadays, and did say similar work could have been done with a Nikon F and a prime. More than that I don't know what I can say. Except with a DSLR you still have the size to contend with if photographing people, you don't get the view outside the framelines......come to think of it, have you read all the way through?
Steve
ashrafazlan
Established
Sorry for asking questions, I was simply curious 🙂
Last edited:
Similar threads
