kbg32
neo-romanticist
jacema said:
Sorry, Jacques, but with all due respect, I believe you bought this camera for all the wrong reasons. It might not be something that you need, or even use, though you could afford it. Having a good attitude in taking pictures is important. A camera is just a tool for getting the image you want quickly, effortlessly, and with little fanfare. It should be an extension of one's self.
Leica's mystique arrises from all the great photographers and images that were taken with this brand. There were reasons for them chosing a Leica as their tool. If all your friends drove BMWs would you drive one just because you could afford it, though what you really want is a big ol' Lincoln?
We should choose our tools carefully, because they fit us, and that they get us to the place where we want to be.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear 35mmdelux,
Sorry, I can't let you get away with this 'fact... fact... fact...' stuff. There were quite a lot of 35mm cameras before the Leica, from about 1912 onwards; the prevalence of rendering over photography in the early 20th century is irrelevant, and is a matter of reproduction technology, which was rapidly changing well before 1925; the speed of lenses is irrelevant, and your statement only became true after Zeiss stopped making Contaxes (and incidentally Zeiss invented multicoating in 1942); and the 'tone and bokeh' argument is purely subjective and not a fact at all.
Why is equipment 'put to the ultimate test' in combat? In combat, it's getting a good picture at all; the 'ultimate test' is getting good pictures out of very little, as (for example) Roger Fenton did in the late 1850s.
'Tip of the spear quality-wise' -- well, apart from anything in a larger format, of course, and have you ever used a 21/4.5 Biogon in Contax fit? A world-class lens, 50 years on.
Sorry, chum. This is as indefensible as your 'photography dying in the 1920s' assertions. Valentino suits? Well, I don't like polyester, but I'm happier in my cotton work blues like every traditional French peasant wears, and as for Ferraris, I've written a few books on them and I've had a few friends who owned them (sometimes several of them at a time) and as far as I am concerned they are overpriced rustbuckets: I'd far rather have a Bristol. But as I can't afford either, my opinions on Ferraris count about as much as yours, i.e. not at all. The main difference between us is that you drool over them and I don't.
I've been using Leicas for about 35 years and they are indeed wonderful cameras. As are Alpas, Gandolfis, Linhofs and many others. And Leitz/Leica lenses are superb. As are Zeiss, Rodenstock, Schneider and others.
If you're into conspicuous consumption and the consumer society, the very best of luck to you, but your arguments don't hold water.
Cheers,
Roger
Sorry, I can't let you get away with this 'fact... fact... fact...' stuff. There were quite a lot of 35mm cameras before the Leica, from about 1912 onwards; the prevalence of rendering over photography in the early 20th century is irrelevant, and is a matter of reproduction technology, which was rapidly changing well before 1925; the speed of lenses is irrelevant, and your statement only became true after Zeiss stopped making Contaxes (and incidentally Zeiss invented multicoating in 1942); and the 'tone and bokeh' argument is purely subjective and not a fact at all.
Why is equipment 'put to the ultimate test' in combat? In combat, it's getting a good picture at all; the 'ultimate test' is getting good pictures out of very little, as (for example) Roger Fenton did in the late 1850s.
'Tip of the spear quality-wise' -- well, apart from anything in a larger format, of course, and have you ever used a 21/4.5 Biogon in Contax fit? A world-class lens, 50 years on.
Sorry, chum. This is as indefensible as your 'photography dying in the 1920s' assertions. Valentino suits? Well, I don't like polyester, but I'm happier in my cotton work blues like every traditional French peasant wears, and as for Ferraris, I've written a few books on them and I've had a few friends who owned them (sometimes several of them at a time) and as far as I am concerned they are overpriced rustbuckets: I'd far rather have a Bristol. But as I can't afford either, my opinions on Ferraris count about as much as yours, i.e. not at all. The main difference between us is that you drool over them and I don't.
I've been using Leicas for about 35 years and they are indeed wonderful cameras. As are Alpas, Gandolfis, Linhofs and many others. And Leitz/Leica lenses are superb. As are Zeiss, Rodenstock, Schneider and others.
If you're into conspicuous consumption and the consumer society, the very best of luck to you, but your arguments don't hold water.
Cheers,
Roger
Last edited:
R
RML
Guest
OK guys, calm down! It's just a friggin' Leica! I have one (an M2) and before I got me a meter with it I found it useless as a woolly in the jungle. I actually prefer shooting with my Bessa R or my Leitz Minolta CL, with a J8 or my CV 25/4.
If someone needs reasons to justify his buying habits, fine, but don't bring it here as fact. Too many people here know it's just subjective reasoning.
If someone needs reasons to justify his buying habits, fine, but don't bring it here as fact. Too many people here know it's just subjective reasoning.
aizan
Veteran
Might want to take those off the list of facts!
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
This topic has been beaten to a pulp, then resurrected, then remartirized, then beaten to death again, and then again and again.
This will never be resolved. Just go over to Photo.net to "read" the banal "discussions"; everybody pretends to be right with "facts" half right.
I actually vote to have this thread closed. It's a waste of bandwidth and it's in danger of turning into a Photo.net thread clone.
This will never be resolved. Just go over to Photo.net to "read" the banal "discussions"; everybody pretends to be right with "facts" half right.
I actually vote to have this thread closed. It's a waste of bandwidth and it's in danger of turning into a Photo.net thread clone.
K
Kris
Guest
I share the same thought with Gabriel. I too will be glad if Jorge or Joe decides to put an end to this thread.
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
35mmdelux said:
35mmdelux,
as I said: all in good humor, I am not at all interested in any kind of religious discussion.
What i wanted to say was that Leica earns a place in the camera's hall of fame undoubtedly, not only as a tool of outstanding photographers but of course also from reasons of quality. But the myth of " The Best " is an image invention of Leica marketing itself ( a good one !) , which helped them well to justify their prices from the moment on, first when a Canon P or a a Nikon S came. And many pro customers ate that story because they need always the best and most reliable tool with the best tech support available on the market and the private customers ate that story to justify their enormous invest.
After a wile Leica began to keep their own invention as reality and beeing drunken from their own glory they missed the first revolution, SLR. The image transfer to the R line was not really successful , they could not achieve a mentionable market share on the pro market.
Now, still drunken they missed the second revolution ( to hell with it ) which is digital. and iIf not a wonder will happen they will die soon. Die from the myth which was their own invention.
Let me add some remarks:
>>Fact: Leica was at the tip of the spear in the 35mm revolution.
At the ver first time yes !
Barnack built a little test engine for cinema film and had the idea of a still camera with this reduced mini format.
Later no ! Zeiss was not worse and some others performed on the same level in the from the 50s on. And the MF cameras were always better, and they are better up 'til today.
>>Fact: Many early 20th century publications fotos were not fotos at all, they were illustrations.
I don't know what you mean ? In the 20s when Leica came to market with 35mm
cameras 120 film cameras performed pretty good already, they worked much better with the emulsions of those days than every 35mm camera . The 35mm results looked quite poor compared to 6X6 or 6X9 negs if you watch photos from 1930 to 1960. First of all because the film quality which was not good enuff for the capabilities of 35mm lenses.
>>Fact: Leica tone and the image boheh remain unmatched.
I've never understood what in general Leica tone could be tho I had hundred of Leica photos in my hands. Some lenses have a certain nice footprint, that is true, other brands have a different footprint one can like too. And Bokeh is sometimes important but sometimes not all and that Leica renders the OOF details better than all others is plain nonsense in my eyes .
So if you have used the lenses of all concurrent brands for quite a while and you came to that conclusion I will respect this as your OPINION but not as a fact.
>>Fact: While Zeiss glass is outstanding, none match the high speed of Leica >>lenses.
"Fact" is a big bad word . Imagine the consequences of such a general statement !
If this is a fact, you can prove it. How do you prove it ?
Is that your personal experience ?Did you use both brands long enuff to be sure enuff for such a statement ?
To be honest your "fact" statements sound so pontifical and total that one coild suspect them to be a reproduction of the opinions of those many selftaught pseudo-scientific Leica experts. We all now Leica still pays some of this kind for writing such stuff permanently, the Leica community always refers to them, the rest finds them funny, to use a polite word.
But my impression can be wrong of course , maybe it's based all on your own experience. If so You must be VERY expereinced .
Best regards,
Bertram
Bertram2
Gone elsewhere
Kris said:
Why , Kris? It's all running well so far , polite and decent. Your suggestion for the list admin comes a bit too early for my taste, it should be possible to discuss controversial as long as all behave decently.
The difference to P.net should not be that we exclude certain issues but HOW we discuss them. In my understanding at least.
To cut off such a thread at this point of the discussion would be a kind of censorship IMHO which I would not appreciate . I think we can take care of ourselfs here , right ? Harmony at ANY price would be the wrong direction.
Best,
Bertram
back alley
IMAGES
so far the conversation has remained civil. i see no need to intervene.
joe
joe
sf
Veteran
no camera is just a camera
no camera is just a camera
In the wrong hands and at the wrong moment. . . THEN is a camera just a camera.
no camera is just a camera
In the wrong hands and at the wrong moment. . . THEN is a camera just a camera.
Jarvis
in quest of "the light"
Its a good camera, the lenses are great, the looks are nice, the touch and feel is fantastic and if your a dentist or similar overpaid profession the price might even be right for you .... and now you can even get them in red, yellow and blue .... And after all it is the marketplace that decides whether a camera is good or not, they will do this by judging the price/performance ratio, and if this is just about right the company making the product will prosper.... and prosper, and prosper ... yes great cameras these leica's !
jdos2
Well-known
35mmdelux said:
Hmmm. Lot's of subjectiveness here, exhibited as fact, in my opinion.
Posted lovingly, from a Leica MP/Noctilux/35mm Summilux ASPH/90mm 'Chron ASPH, and so forth, owner.
If you want to think of war photography and "other" cameras, think "Iwo Jima," and a certain flag raising event.
Or pre war? Think of the Hindenburg ("Oh, the HUGE MANATEE!"), and think of all the burned leicas that went down while the press men were throwing down exposed film holders in an effort to keep from re-exposing from excitement.
Leica was indeed in with others at the front of the 35mm film revolution. Please note here that at the time, it wasn't so much a "revolution," but a way for hobbyists to take more pictures more cheaply, at the expense of effort and trouble. Leica came along and... Helped keep the ball rolling, then rode a crest of enthusiasm, as did others. 35mm didn't come into its own until the late 40's of course.
I'll put my CZJ 50mm against ANY 50mm from Leica of the same era (post war until 1960!). Better coating, better sharpness, better rendition, and good bokeh. To better anything from Leica of the era, as well as the CZJ 50mm f/1.5, I'd have to go with the Voigtlander Prominent 50mm- which is slightly better than the CZJ. To this day, I liked my CZ 45mm on my G2 which just didn't flare much, over a new 'Cron which indeed did. I believe that Zeiss "can't match" anything from Leica of the era because they'd have to soften the lenses up to do so, and put coatings on 'em that rub off more easily. It was an old saw, that Zeiss was for professionals, Leitz for hobbyists. What Zeiss forgot, of course, was that hobbyists enter the field as well...
What do you mean by "tone?"
I have a strong feeling that there are lots of folks out there that take great pride in the machinery that they bought into with Leica gear. I know I enjoy using it greatly. I can't really use anything but a rangefinder if I want to take pictures fairly quickly- I simply can't focus well on a ground glass without taking a long time to examine the picture with a loupe. That's why the only SLR I own is an RB67, found on a tripod. The rest are rangefinders. I come from MF stock, and the Mamiya Universal, any lens, will blow anything from a 35mm away in terms of color, detail, and so forth.
I got me a Leica for the Noc, and the 35mm 'Lux, but I hold absolutely no illusions about the camera, who's flary finders (which I found unforgivable for something that cost so much) were only recently fixed. The Universal's finder sure doesn't flare like my M6TTL did, and that's a lunky thing. I got my MP because I hoped I could carry something small, accurate, and reliable into places where my Universal would be extravagant, or worse, much more easily noticed. I've not yet been disappointed (WHO says it's hard to focus a Noc?)
Leica lends itself well to discussion. I think it's art. I think my (now brassing!) MP as beautiful, and know that it's history is discussion, argument, and the subject of strange conversations (a lens "better" than another sounds like "zen-er" to my ears!) for a long time. I hope it continues!
It better. My MP has dust in the finder because the folks that designed it didn't think about people using it, it seems. It'll go back under passport, one day.