The Biq Question (or two)

[furcafe]

IMHO, this is an important point, putting aside the technical problems of making a full-frame digital RF. I agree that RFs excel for close-range (&, yes, discrete) documentary & PJ shooting, but since most working photographers have a limited equipment budget, unless a RF is relatively inexpensive (unlike Leica), that advantage isn't great enough that many will add 1 to their toolbox. Their existing SLR, which they need for the bulk of their work, is good enough.

The situation was different in the pre-digital era because many shooters either already had RF bodies & lenses or they could easily get affordable used equipment (e.g., if you couldn't afford even used Leica, you could pick up a Canon RF or fixed-lens RF). Currently, there is no affordable digital RF on the market, new or used, that would fill the niche. Makes me think that there is an opening for something like a digital Hexar AF.

Leica can shine in non rushed PJ work or documentary where you can get close to the subject. Security issues today have everyone back 40 feet requiring 300 2.8 lenses. I think this effectively kills RF for most news work.

 

[pachuco]

I can honestly say that in the past 3 years of PJ work, I have never seen a press photographer using a rangefinder camera. Even the old timers use the newest DSLR's that they can afford. I'm talking about at a press event, not long term doc work. That seems to be the dividing line. It is still acceptable and in some cases better received if long term projects are shot on film. And if shot with a Leica...well, you just bumped up the price of your book by 20% 😎

IMHO, this is an important point, putting aside the technical problems of making a full-frame digital RF. I agree that RFs excel for close-range (&, yes, discrete) documentary & PJ shooting, but since most working photographers have a limited equipment budget, unless a RF is relatively inexpensive (unlike Leica), that advantage isn't great enough that many will add 1 to their toolbox. Their existing SLR, which they need for the bulk of their work, is good enough.

The situation was different in the pre-digital era because many shooters either already had RF bodies & lenses or they could easily get affordable used equipment (e.g., if you couldn't afford even used Leica, you could pick up a Canon RF or fixed-lens RF). Currently, there is no affordable digital RF on the market, new or used, that would fill the niche. Makes me think that there is an opening for something like a digital Hexar AF.

 

[Bill Pierce]

I want to thank everybody who is taking part in this thread. It is dealing with a subject that normally brings out the worst behavior and some of the most amazing displays of hostile ignorance on the internet. I see none of that, absolutely none. I see an intelligent and civil discussion that could actually inform. We all owe sonofdanang for his long and informative post.

As a rather trivial aside, the comparison between "sharpness" of 35mm film and digital cameras that imitate their film predecessors - it's a jungle out there. Some of us have a small idea of the many, many factors that contribute to a film image's sharpness at creation and on its way to becoming a viewable image. Now add pixels, aliasing, constant changes e.t.c. to the mix and "sharpness" becomes so complex that Leitz's old technique of puttting pictures up in the cafeteria and asking the employees to rate their quality begins to make real sense. One of the advantages of digital is that the midground resoluions that play such a big part in our impression of sharpness can be enhanced so that a variety of lenses will look very good. One of it's disadvantages is that it takes a very good system to preserve the extremely fine detail that some lenses can deliver. Right now, just looking at pictures, I would say that if you own top of the line digital gear, digital is going to be better than 35mm film at high ISO's down to 400. And below those speeds - well, I don't go there anymore. If I want more than 35mm HP5, XP2 or Tri give me, my tendency is to use medium format, 4x5 or 8x10. And, yes, the 8x10 is sharper than the M6, the M8, the 5D Mark II, e.t.c., e.tc.......

 

[Bill Pierce]

I'm curious about the Leitz Cafeteria technique. Am I to understand that most people, even the technocrats, responded to the content rather than the technical measurement of an image? Or am I missing the point?

Best,

S

Leitz had some amazing laboratory tools for analyzing lens performance including a large optical bench that when a door in the lab that housed it was opened pointed out to the distant landscape. But the type of tests that you run in a lab tend to pinpoint specific aberrations to rapidly deliver information to a designer.

To judge the overall performance for a variety of picture situations a lot of the people there felt it was best to shoot a variety of pictures. That takes a lot of time and it doesn't really tell you why the lens is doing well in certain situations. But a lot of folks at the old Wetzlar plant felt it really told you whether you had made a good lens or not.

 

[dseelig]

Hi Bill
Nice to be quoted. For me the major benefit of the M8 is people stay more natural then pointing a big old dslr at them, it is still less intimadating. The bad news the low light quality is a little rough. A rrangefinder digital will survive but the Leica needs a major upgrade and leica needs to upgrade there service for amatuer shooters, otherwise it might go away. If leica knows your a pro there service is fine.

 

[emraphoto]

Hi Bill
Nice to be quoted. For me the major benefit of the M8 is people stay more natural then pointing a big old dslr at them, it is still less intimadating. The bad news the low light quality is a little rough. A rrangefinder digital will survive but the Leica needs a major upgrade and leica needs to upgrade there service for amatuer shooters, otherwise it might go away. If leica knows your a pro there service is fine.

i am sorry to quibble but that was definately not my experience with leicausa...