Why Leica Matters

helenhill said:
Leica Matters= Product Worship= Who Cares
Click to expand...

I tend to agree about the product worship but I still think the M9 is the perfect digital camera even allowing for it's rather average ISO performance.

I just can't get past the price of admission though!
 
Keith:
My thoughts about You & the M9
Probably a used M9 is within your Budget
But I suspect you already know in the back of your Mind
That You can create Stellar Photos with any camera you pick up
And You love a Challenge

Your work with the Merrills is outstanding, youv'e proved their Value & Resolution capabilities

For you its less about the Gear, more about the Image
So stop Lusting :eek: and be content with creating :D
 
I can't even recall how many Leicas I have owned, from a IIIf through all the M series and some SLRs, too, over the last 50+ years. I have a lot of respect for their place in photographic history and their contribution to photography in general.

They are not the same company today, having lost some relevance almost every year since the 70s and having undergone several reorganizations and changes in ownership. They are not pre-eminent in the field.

My X-Pro1 is far more versatile in use and presents an image that, for me, is the equal of a Leica. All this at a price point that I can actually afford, but without the "prestige".
 
Yeh, I think the stumbling point is boiling it all down to the one word "simplicity" - it kind of begs the question "What do YOU mean by 'simple' ? "

Certainly, if you need to quickly control what the camera is about to do, then those simple little dials and rings (from the olden days) are the best, simplest design. I agree.

Aside (regarding crank starts): Back in the day, I rode a BSA (Lightning) and there was no doubt in me that if you didn't kick-start your bike you should not get on it. :D
 
helenhill said:
Keith:
My thoughts about You & the M9
Probably a used M9 is within your Budger
But I suspect you already know in the back of your Mind
That You can create Stellar Photos with any camera you pick up
And You love a Challenge

Your work with the Merrills is outstanding, youv'e proved their Value & Resolution capabilities

For you its less about the Gear, more about the Image
So stop lusting :eek: and be more content with creating :D
Click to expand...


Thanks gal! :)

Now that I've moved a long way past Leica lust (blindness) purely for the sake of the brand, I can see the M9 for what it is. I'd probably be quite comfortable paying $2500.00 for a used one but not much more.

As for my Merrills as good as they are their lack of finesse in the focusing area bugs me at times ... though I have yet to see a match for that foveon sensor. An M9 with a full frame foveon sensor would likely be the perfect camera for me. :)
 
I shot with my IIIf nearly exclusively-a simple machine,a lot of fun,but no where near as simple as my LX5 or K100D if I just want to take a picture.

I found my various Olympus P&S film cameras to be far simpler to use.
 
My thoughts?

My Bessa R is more simple to Leica M. I could use my LTM glass right away on it :) It is very simple to load film in it and see if film is in as well.

My Barnack is not expensive, nor most of them. It is less expensive comparing to my Bessa R.

I own two pre-Barnak folders. They are dead simple. Thier shutters almost service free after eighty years.
The reason why Barnacks replaced folders and TLRs (IMO) they were more sophisticated and more compact.

My XA is even more compact and easier to use comparing to my Barnack.
 
Keith said:
I tend to agree about the product worship but I still think the M9 is the perfect digital camera even allowing for it's rather average ISO performance...
Click to expand...
Keith, here's the challenge: every time you refer to the alleged poor high-ISO performance of the M9, I'll either write a paean to how great the M9, with its unique color rendition, is for high-ISO night photography using the technique of Shooting at ISO 640 and pushing in Lightroom 4/5, or post a picture illustrating this technique, as in the picture below: :D



Leica M9-P | Elmarit-21 ASPH | ISO 640 pushed 1.7 stops on main subject | f/2.8 | 1/45 sec

Bangkok



—Mitch/Bangkok
Tristes Tropiques
 
What I love about that photo Mitch
Is the Blur....the Blur of the $$$$ with the blur of the Motion behind
 
I've used the iiif for a few years, and I recently picked up an M2. No other cameras have felt as good in my hands as the Leicas; it's really that simple...haptic joy!

I also enjoy using manual dials, knobs, rings, and other things; something that I discovered while still using a DSLR (I started this hobby using digital).

If we are going to resort to car analogies, I would compare using any mechanical camera (not just Leica) more with choosing manual transmission over automatic. In this sense, it doesn't seem that dramatic or peculiar.

But if my approach still appears anachronistic to others, that's fine. It's a hobby, and if I derive so much as a degree of some tactile pleasure from using the film advance lever, then so be it.

Oddly enough, people still use pianos, pens, paintbrushes, and their very hands instead of computers and their various modes of output, including 3D printing.

Also, as simple as an iPhone is, it is, FOR ME, an ergonomically atrocious device with which to take photos.
 
Maybe this is the difference between one's definition of simple and of basic. I think the beauty of the digital M line discussed here is the distilling of photography down to its "basics" in the digital age. Few modern cameras, if any, have stuck not just to their roots -but to the basics like Leica, for better or for worse. That is what makes them great. Though I have moved on from the world of the digital M, there is still a soft spot there every time I pick up one of my film bodies.

By the way, Duane is a fairly active member here.
 
burancap said:
Maybe this is the difference between one's definition of simple and of basic. I think the beauty of the digital M line discussed here is the distilling of photography down to its "basics" in the digital age. Few modern cameras, if any, have stuck not just to their roots -but to the basics like Leica, for better or for worse. That is what makes them great. Though I have moved on from the world of the digital M, there is still a soft spot there every time I pick up one of my film bodies.
Click to expand...

Good summary. I even have a soft spot for the digital M too.
 
Its the most simplistic in adjusting 4 of the 5 basic parameters to allow photographic control? Aperture, exposure time, focus and crop (no, a zoom is NOT more simplistic, it only allows to change the crop). ISO is less simplistic, but better than P&S and iWhatever.

Edit: perhaps I should have written "frame" instead of "crop"? Sorry, English is not my native language.
 
I use only the same controls.. ISO , aperture,
Speed on all my cams..Nikon, fuji, or Leica.

Simplicity in all three, if one wants it or
All manual as in mp.

If one leaves .jpg..raw one can forget about
WB too.

Size... My fujis are smaller and lighter

Rangefinder is the only reason for me to
Use a Leica combined with certain Leica lenses.

Other reasons being offered are available
With all systems.

Justifying expensive purchases is not needed
If it brings pleasure to the user.
 
Leica matters because it was an innovator, and produced some beautifully designed and engineered cameras. It also matters, just as every camera manufacturer matters, because I want them to survive in a market heavily pressed by smartphone usage.

That's it, really.
 
"This is no different from the time that Oskar Barnack wanted something smaller than the traditional, heavy plate cameras of his time. It was his idea to create a smaller negative format which led to the 35mm format (24x36mm). Through his genius idea he developed the Ur-Leica to test exposures for cinema film which then led to the first 35mm camera made by Leica."

Just a historical curiosity question. The miniature film (from x to the 35mm) did not existed already as cine-film? And Barnack had the idea of using the 35mm for photography?
 
Why is he comparing a small rangefinder to a big DSLR? Of course the Leica is smaller and simpler. I don't buy any of this. A Nikon FG or Pentax ME Super is as small as a Leica. Depends on the lens (on both cameras). No, those cameras don't have that Leica "feel", but my photographs don't know the difference. Since I have never owned a new Leica anything, and don't shoot digital, it's no big thing if the company goes on or not. I'll be OK either way. A little Bessa R and some old classic glass will give you a nice, small camera that will do just fine. I'd much rather spend my money on film and print making.
 
Rhodes said:
"This is no different from the time that Oskar Barnack wanted something smaller than the traditional, heavy plate cameras of his time. It was his idea to create a smaller negative format which led to the 35mm format (24x36mm). Through his genius idea he developed the Ur-Leica to test exposures for cinema film which then led to the first 35mm camera made by Leica."

Just a historical curiosity question. The miniature film (from x to the 35mm) did not existed already as cine-film? And Barnack had the idea of using the 35mm for photography?
Click to expand...

Hi,

35mm film existed and was used in huge rolls in cine photography but the exact speed etc was tested and that's what the original Leica was intended to do, meaning test a sample from a large roll. But it was also a perfectly good still camera and - at double the "Academy" frame size - could be enlarged. Barnack used it as a personal camera and the Leica we know took off from there.

Regards, David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom