the whoop-de-do about Leica

back alley said:
...

i don't like it when i feel 'less than' others because i think differently or use a different camera than you.

...
Click to expand...
Try walking in my shoes! I like my Kodak Retina. I have no burning desire for a Leica, Contax, etc. despite the fact I like using well engineered equipment (meaning that it meets my user requirements). 😱 What's more... I don't even fit in the "bargain-basement" club... I have a Canonet and don't like it. 😱
 
Okay Joe, I'll walk away from this thread, but god help you if you post that you really like using your ZI ! 🙂

How more inclusive could I be after mentioning Leica, Contax, Nikon, and Canon vintage RF's!?
 
I love cast iron. There, I've said it. Coat it with porcelin or sling it to me as pig iron. No fancy non-stick plastics to burn off at high temps, builds character & forearms & a stealth source of iron for my vegetarian wife. 60 year old Griswold, 1 year old Lodge brand . . . it just keeps on ticking. And it's cheap, at least the non-porcelin coated varieties. Hi-ho.

Ben
 
Interesting thread. Sorry I'm so late to the party.

I knew right away what you meant Frank.

When someone is using a piece of equipment that is adequate, even high-quality they become curious when "the best" comes along. They ask why that thing is "better". They try it, and find that its results are not necessarily better, but it just FEELS better.

Examples: BMW M5 as the "best" sporty sedan. It performs well, but not necessarily in a linear fashion with its price. It looks nice, but not necessarily twice as nice as... a Toyota MR2 Turbo or Acura NSX. (only an example) To some eyes, it looks better. But one thing that cannot be toppled is that it has a certain feeling to it that nothing else has.

Example 2: in the auto-pistol world there is the same type of argument that Sig Sauer (Mercedes, Leica) and Heckler & Koch (BMW, Contax) is better than Ruger (Toyota) and Smith & Wesson (Nissan).

Example 3: Rolex (Leica) vs. Omega (Nikon) vs. Seiko (Voigtlander, Canon)

People talk and talk and talk, and very little is decided, except that there is a certain "feel" to the "better" brand. Some are convinced that it is buying a brand. Others can tell the difference and are willing to admit that their expensive Rolex is not necessarily "better" than an inexpensive Seiko. Others wear a Rolex proudly and denounce those who do not see it as the best.

So I guess my vote is that there is something in the feel of the more expensive brands. Not necessarily long term reliability or all-out performance.

In cameras, it isn't as evenly-matched as it is with watches, guns, or cars, since Leica had such an early start compared to most other 35mm marques. It too the others a good while to catch up. When they did, quality differences became academic more than anything.
 
>>In cameras, it isn't as evenly-matched as it is with watches, guns, or cars, since Leica had such an early start compared to most other 35mm marques. It too the others a good while to catch up. When they did, quality differences became academic more than anything.<<

The story is actually even more interesting than that. In the early 1950s, upstart no-name camera companies in Japan, Canon and Nikon, started making lenses for Leica cameras that were wider, faster and sharper than German lenses. This burst of competition spurred Leitz to significantly improve its lens offerings as well as its camera bodies (creating the M3). By 1960, Nikon was transforming photography with the SLR; Canon was manufacturing a wide array of excellent lenses in Leica mount, and Leica made the decision that, in order to survive in the 35mm format it had pioneered, it would have to make and market the finest possible lenses. The "mystique" was part of the marketing tool they developed in the 1960s to distinquish themselves amid the SLR frenzy.
 
its funny - some people talk about the superiority of rangefinders, but most photojournalists switched over to the SLR system for practical reasons when it came out many years ago. the resurgance of RF's is just trendy in my eyes - they all do the job though, M's just for an unjustifiably higher price. I don't say that becuase I'm jealous - I use M's all the time, I just don't find anything to write home about like many seem to do on internet forums. any mystique or religious experience you talk about is thanks to the marketing department at your favorite company. I actually find cheap modern SLR's to be much more ergonomic than any rangefinder leica has ever produced.
 
Not defending RFs, but it seems to me that for photojournalism, SLRs don't offer any significant advantages. They don't do a lot of macro, and most telephoto shots are pretty short. (except popparazzi, and I don't count them as photojournalists)
 
>>it seems to me that for photojournalism, SLRs don't offer any significant advantages.<<

SLRs are more flexible.
You don't need separate finders for very wide lens, which are generally easier to focus and frame with an SLR. The Leica system's telephoto ability becomes highly stressed past the 100/105mm lens range and impossible past 135mm.

SLRs offer "wysiwyg" viewing, giving more quick comprehension of depth-of-field effects.

Not inherent to the design, but SLRs have flash syncs of 1/60 and higher, compared to somewhat shorter sync for Leica M. Ability to quickly use flash, indoors and, especailly, outdoors with daylight fill, is an important tool for photojournalism. I'm not commenting on the artistic merits of available light versus flash, only the fact that most news photographers learn to be comfortable with flash as another tool allowing them to get any image at any time under any conditions.

Sports, sports, sports! I am a die-hard rangefinder user. A former news photographer who got "promoted" into just writing, I have gone for years at a time using only my rangefinders for personal and family photgraphy. But when my 9-year-old's soccer/football team moved to a fullsize field last autumn, the 135mm telephoto just didn't have the reach. I unpacked my Nikon F2 from the closet along with 180/2.8 and 200/4 lenses. If I was trying to shoot consistent, professional-quality pix, not just family snaps, I'd probably carry another body and pack the 400/5.6 and, if I was on an expense account, a 300/2.8. Long telephotos are also essential to cover many of the standard events that are part of photojournalism, where media is kept at a distance, either at police incidents or news conferences, or where it would be inappropriate or disrespectful to be too close.

Zoom lenses. Standard photojournalism outfit today is two bodies and two lenses ... a wide fast zoom and a long fast zoom. That's really simplicity, if you think about it, allowing you to not worry about which lens to mount and just concentrate on getting an image.
 
>>it seems to me that for photojournalism, SLRs don't offer any significant advantages.<<

SLRs are more flexible.
You don't need separate finders for very wide lens, which are generally easier to focus and frame with an SLR. The Leica system's telephoto ability becomes highly stressed past the 100/105mm lens range and impossible past 135mm.

SLRs offer "wysiwyg" viewing, giving more quick comprehension of depth-of-field effects.

Not inherent to the design, but SLRs have flash syncs of 1/60 and higher, compared to somewhat slower sync for Leica M. Ability to quickly use flash, indoors and, especailly, outdoors with daylight fill, is an important tool for photojournalism. I'm not commenting on the artistic merits of available light versus flash, only the fact that most news photographers learn to be comfortable with flash as another tool allowing them to get any image at any time under any conditions.

Sports, sports, sports! I am a die-hard rangefinder user. A former news photographer who got "promoted" into just writing, I have gone for years at a time using only my rangefinders for personal and family photgraphy. But when my 9-year-old's soccer/football team moved to a fullsize field last autumn, the 135mm telephoto just didn't have the reach. I unpacked my Nikon F2 from the closet along with 180/2.8 and 200/4 lenses. If I was trying to shoot consistent, professional-quality pix, not just family snaps, I'd probably carry another body and pack the 400/5.6 and, if I was on an expense account, a 300/2.8. Long telephotos are also essential to cover many of the standard events that are part of photojournalism, where media is kept at a distance, either at police incidents or news conferences, or where it would be inappropriate or disrespectful to be too close.

Zoom lenses. Standard photojournalism outfit today is two bodies and two lenses ... a wide fast zoom and a long fast zoom. That's really simplicity, if you think about it, allowing you to not worry about which lens to mount and just concentrate on getting an image.
 
Last edited:
>>i definitely enjoy the experience more than shooting slr's<<

Despite all the advantages of SLR I mentioned above, I do perhap 98 percent of my photography with rangefinder cameras, including occassional professional work. I view the SLR as a capable and sometimes necessary tool. But I vastly prefer the size, weight and overall simplicity of rangefinders.
 
>>it was said by some brit photographer in the 80's that a leica is the only camera with a soul... <<

Poor bloke must've never used a Nikon SP. My heart goes out to him.
 
VinceC said:
>>it was said by some brit photographer in the 80's that a leica is the only camera with a soul... <<

Poor bloke must've never used a Nikon SP. My heart goes out to him.
Click to expand...

Vince, IMO, you can include any of the major RF camera brands built in the 1950's in the "soul" statement. Canon, Nikon, Leica, Contax
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Rob-F
AI is helping me decide whether to buy a Leica M10!
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
2K
Rob-F
Rob-F
J
  • Article Article
The Leica as a work of ART: Selling the image of elegant exclusivity
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Pioneer
Pioneer
J
  • Article Article
Will the long-anticipated Leica M11-V with built-in EVF arrive in 2025? Probably, but it’s taking longer than expected and rumors are still flying!
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
8K
rfaspen
rfaspen
J
  • Article Article
Leica Cameras of the Future: A Long-time Leica Fan’s Wish ListAn upgraded M EV1, a Leica I (Model A) replica, a slim retro compact!
Replies
3
Views
328
neal3k
neal3k
PatrickT
How long do we think digital Leica M cameras will last?
5 6 7
Replies
130
Views
8K
Dogman
Dogman
Back
Top Bottom